Just another mould..or two.

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

Well at this point I'm thinking I will test the under the powder wads again to see if they continue to show an improvement. I learned many years ago that one group means absolutely nothing and it takes several groups to prove that something is working. The thing that jumped out at me with this group using the U.P. wads was that it had only about 1/8” of vertical and 1 5/15 horizontal spread. All the other groups were more or less triangular and showing about the same vertical as the horizontal, but it’s only 3 shots so don’t take it to the bank yet.

I’ll move to 5 shot groups next and stay with the 82 grains of my new Swiss 1 ½. I will also continue with the 2 over the powder wads and the pistol primers. That pretty much leaves just the under the powder wads. I’ll sort out which is consistently the best and then work up with the powder a bit and see where that goes.

I’m still a ways off from having my machines up and running, but once I get my lathe going I’ll make the adjustment to the flat base screw that Steve Brooks sent me and test the same length bullet with a flat base. It’s likely to weight another 5 grains but I see this 1.350” bullet as being a very useful projectile for mid range and silhouette if things keep looking good.

I keep forgetting to mention that it was Don McDowell that told me that his 17 twist rifle really liked this length and the idea didn’t fall on deaf ears. I know you have worked with some lighter .44 caliber bullets with excellent results as well. I’m always looking for that 520 grain weight but I know a lot of shooting does not require that much lead.

I think my .44-77 is going to be very happy with this adjustable mold from Steve. I put a lot of thought into this mold and I think it’s all coming together nicely.

[J.B.]

I know I had good results on steel ..and some small steel at times out to 600 yds but nothing returns detailed information like a paper target when it comes to checking groups. Diamond targets certainly help you concentrate on your hold though. Some impressive groups in the previous posts and I need to get onto paper at 2..or perhaps 300 yds to really see what mine are doing. In answer to your query Jim...yes its the 1/19" rifle I planned this Acc. mould around. I figured it should be close to ideal for the
twist and still be a performer in the 1/17" if the time ever comes. Actually thinking that at one of our shoots early in the New Year, we might put up our Creedmoor target frame and shoot it from , say 300 yds. This would be a chance for any of our members
to actually find out how consistent their loads are performing over a moderate range. The original Postell gg Brooks mould I have throws at 1.37 and while I managed some good results beyond about 700 yds...they become erratic in any cross wind of note and
I dont believe it was 'just me' all the time. The new d.d. pp Brooks mould should be another Postell design and hopefully a close replica of your own. This bullet I asked to be at 1.4" ( & 1.42 max). That makes it likely the same or a 'hair' over the BACo mould and with a flat base should run to 505/510 grains or thereabouts. For the 1/17" but likely to be tested in the 1/19 firstly. I'm beginning to think I need to try using some ldpe wads and see how I go but I'm nervous about losing cases. My card wads I usually cut in a press mounted punch at .447". BACo list .446" wads in both .06 & .03. I find I've virtually stopped using .03 now and .06 is my 'go to'. Powder compression varies slightly from lot to lot but using two .06 wads would represent some depth lost in the case neck and likely need more compression...or a reduction in powder charge. I'm curious...but can't quite get excited about under powder, paper wads though. Sooner just have the coffee.
rgds.. J.B.

[Don McDowell]

In the 19 twist I found anything over 135 was pretty dicey past 300
.135 works most of the time to 600 and sometimes to 800 but beyond that it’s a guess and if the winds pick up 800 isn’t anything to write home about
1.3 seems to be good all the way to 1000 even in rough conditions

You’re 1.33 may work out pretty well but there’s only one way to know for sure, that’s a length I never thought to set my adjustable to
Looking forward to your long range tests
135 worked so well in the 17 twist I just couldn’t bring myself to try any other length and spent my time on powder and wads and wiping routine

[Distant Thunder]

J.B.,

I'm with you on the coffee, brother! It's proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!

I have resisted the under the powder wads until now. With very good shooters using them and having better result than without I had to have a look. I am probably way early in even mentioning it because it was only one group of 3 shots at 200 yards, not what you would call a big sample size. The group impressed me enough to make me want to try it again and I will. So you can see for yourself I will make an effort to attach a picture of that group here. If I said I broke number 3 to the left about an inch you would understand why this group got my attention!

I've been doing this long enough to know it isn't likely going to repeat in another 3 shot group and much less so in a 10 shot group and then in multiple 10 shot groups, but I remain interested in seeing what the next group brings.

In a 19 twist .44 caliber at about 1300 fps your maximum length for optimum stability is 1.320". Longer may be fine most of the time, but if the wind she a blowin' look out! The profile of the bullet plays into the equation also but I have NO idea how to calculate that part. I can only say that a shorter ogive is better than a longer one and less pointed is better than more.

As to giving up powder space with two wads instead of one I can only say that for me the sweet spot for powder charge in .44 and .45 caliber has been around 80 to 85 grains. That is where I have been the happiest. The .44-77 with a bore diameter paper patch bullet has almost too much room for powder, at least for me.

While we are talking about powder capacity, another thing that surprised me with these loads I shot yesterday was that the amount of fouling I pushed out the barrel after each shot was noticeably less than I have seen from this rifle at any time before. Was it the 82 grains with only 1/16” compression? Or was it the new lot of powder? I don’t yet know but there was not the big pile of black gunk that has always been there before! Just grey smudge mostly. That was very interesting.

At matches I use my bore pigs soaked with my oil and water mix because they do an excellent job but also because they are so fast and get me back in the rifle ready for the next shot much more quickly.

When I’m shooting groups here at home I have been first using my blow tube for 3 or 4 breathes and then I run a damp patch through and follow with a dry patch. The dry patches I collect and reuse as wet patches later. This saves me having to wash out my bore pigs and saves on patches in general. Time is not that important when I’m off the clock.

The fouling was so light I started thinking about blow tubing and then just running a dry patch, but I didn’t want that experiment to affect my load testing so I left well enough alone.

All in all yesterday was an interesting day of shooting and it left me with more questions than answers, but it also left me very hopeful.

[Don McDowell]

Jim I know the temptation to take things a little simpler at home but I’ve found that it usually best to test at home in “match” conditions altho we can’t replicate the side noises and such but using the same fouling control

[Distant Thunder]

Don,

So you believe that a 1.350" long bullet from a 17-twist .44 caliber barrel would be worth trying out to 1000 yards? There are a few ifs involved but if this bullet does continue to shoot well and if it proves itself out to 600 yards, I would certainly give it a try at 800. If it shot well at 800 I might even try it at 900. And the ifs continue....

How far have you shot this fast spinning 1.350" bullet? And whit what results?

[Distant Thunder]

Don,

You are absolutely right about shooting in as close to match conditions as possible at home, but I see load development as a different case all together. I have tested, refined and tested again my fouling control under match conditions at home and in matches. I do not believe I am giving anything up by using a different fouling control method in my winter time shooting. Most of my match shooting has been in somewhat warmer temps than this winter shooting and that probably has a bigger affect than how I'm wiping as long as both methods yeild the same clean as a whistle bore that they do.

When things warm up and the ground isn't frozen as hard as a rock I'll be laying down with my rifle on the sticks and have everything set up just like I do at a match and I'll run a timer and refine things to work in match conditions, but for now in these below freezing temps and with the ground covered in snow I do things just a bit different. YMMV

[J.B.]

Gee Jim...when I break a shot to one side ( and I do that a lot ! )... its usually not even in speaking distance with the rest of the group. You called that break and still managed a group like that. My hats off to you. I've not the time on the trigger nor the match or practical experience yet but I've found that the more 'old world' the ogive, the less dramatic any errant shots tend to be. I've several elliptical moulds that do o.k. but they arent as forgiving with errors on my part..or interference with the wind...or thats been my experience to date. I believe we covered nose profiles in another thread a year or two ago but 'money' bullets...havent been the panacea ( sounds like the vaccine doesnt it ? ) for me that some others have found. Granted, most 'others' shoot a lot more but I've found the sharper the nose and the faster the speed...the greater the error. I'm trying to minimise those in an average year where less than 4-500 rounds go down range. The absence of my U.S. trips has robbed me of an extra 350 or so rounds in the last few years and local restrictions dropped that even more. Subconsciously am I chasing that '520' grn bullet ? Well...probably. As both Kurt and Jim had indicated...the more rounded, short radius ogive appears to allow a bullet right on..or just over 'calculated ideal length'... still perform beyond what the equations say they will. A little extra horsepower doesnt hurt..but that seems a balance too. The money and elliptical bullets seem to need more punch. The ODG design...not so much. I cant imagine, given my results...and certainly with your results to date...that at 1.35 in a 1/17, it would have any problems posting some points for you at 1000 yds.

J.B.

[Kurt]

The last may shoot at Lodi I used my early 17 twist Wolf Shiloh Farmer .44-77. I shot it instead my .45-90 CPA that shoots so well. I used the .44-77 because just for the heck of it because Jim was going to shoot his new .44-77. I shot my lowest score I ever shot at Lodi a 366/2. It was just me not getting my act together and my shooting abilities are going down hill using a scoped rifle but regardless I used a load I had in the closet that I did not shoot at the previous Quigley and I didn't load new for this match so I used it.
It was loaded with a bullet cast with the Sage mould and it's 1.457" long weighing in at 511 grains with my 17# lead and one roll of no lead solder 95/5 (95% tin 5% antimony) This bullet shot better at 1000 yards than it did at 800 and 900.
Length yes makes a difference but also is the profile of the projectiles ogive tin relation to the shank.

[Don McDowell]

Jim I understand about the winter shooting condition thing?
Luckily I’m really confident I have the 45-90 load for Phoenix having that mould block shortened up to 1.41 really turned it on
Hoping the winds will calm down so I can get the 44-77 out and see if my guesstimate loads from the others work and then it’s a castapaloosa to get 400 rounds for each rifle done in time to head for the Desert International