Just another mould..or two.

[JKR]

I’m very happy with my new Brooks mold. I sent Steve three of the number 6 bullets from Jim’s mold requesting that he make me a mold to duplicate that particular bullet. He did a masterful job on it and I had my new mold in hand in about two weeks. It fills nicely and produces very nice, consistent bullets.

All that remains is to see how they will shoot at one thousand yards. Unless I head South, I won’t be able to answer that question until spring.

JKR.

[Don McDowell]

JKR, Clifford is looking for a possible shooting partner for the Desert International..
You'll need about 400 rounds....

[Distant Thunder]

Don,

#6 actually does exists and therefore is not mythical, but it has been as near to magical as a cast bullet can be when the people around have their heads out in the daylight. I will see what I can do to round up a picture. It's not going to look like anything special, but it sure shoot well in some hard conditions. I only wish I fully understood what makes one bullet shoot so much better than other bullets, but I don't. I have two examples of such bullets and neither looks special just sitting there. I have unable to produce the magic on demand, it just sort of happens.

I finished my Hepburn, more or less, enough to shoot the August match at Lodi in 2013. The rifle still needed a few bugs worked out of it. That match showed me that my #4 bullet, which had worked so well in my Shiloh .45-90, was not a good match for my new rifle, I had finished in 19th place.

So in September I cut #6. I have long ago forgotten what #5 was, but it apparently wasn’t good. My thoughts were to cut a mold that would be a little bigger in diameter to fit my Hepburn and make it with a shorter elliptical ogive for better stability and a bit more weight. The mold wasn’t perfect but it fit my Hepburn better. It actually cast a 540 grain bullet 1.464 long and .444” diameter. The nose was .650 long and because I was working with some new software it ended up with a bit of a flat on the nose. I later figured out how to cut my molds without that flat.

I shot the heck out of that bullet through the winter months and by May 2014 had my rifle and that bullet working pretty well. Brent Danielson won the match with 536-4, but I finished in 2nd with 521-6. The new #6 was working for me and I was learning the proper care and feeding of my new rifle.

I shot #6 again for the June 2014 mid range match and again finished in 2nd place. Bob Walline won that match with 567-23 and I ended with 566-21. Since Bob and I were shooting together I just figured Bob had the better spotter! Those scores are in the 94-95% range and fairly high X counts. #6 did well.

When I set out to cast with #6 for the August 2014 long range match I had all kinds of trouble getting good bullets from the mold and I was pressed for time. I grab my #3 mold, which was identical to my #4 but I had opened it up to cast at .445 diameter, and I cast enough bullets for the match. The bigger diameter #3 shot well enough that I won the match.

I never really looked back at the #6 and just set it aside. I opened up my #4 mold to fit my Hepburn and shortened it to 1.435”. It took me some time to improve my scores but after 2 years I was winning matches shooting #4, including 2 Creedmoor Cups and 2 State Championships and a handful of other long range matches over a 4 year period. The 2020 shooting season was my best year in long range, but as it has been for me 2021 was not so good as I continue to learn and experiment with new things.

I should probably revisit #6 at some point, but my #4 has won more matches for me than all my other bullets combined. It’s hard to leave it behind when I want to win a match.

#4 is on the left and #6 is on the right.

[Don McDowell]

That's a good looking bullet Jim.

[Don McDowell]

Scale that bugger to fit your 44 and you might have a dynamic duo of rifles on your hands

[Distant Thunder]

They both have shot very well for me and the #6 has shot well for JKR, but I can't really say why or that they would work in any other rifle. When I first began to email JKR and he wanted to know about BPTR matches here in Wisconsin and told me that he had a Shiloh in .45-70 with their standard chamber I thought there might be a chance it would shoot paper patch very well.

JKR is a modest man, but he has a lot of shooting experience in high power and target pistol. Rather than let that experience close his mind to the world of BPTR he has remained open minded and has listened very well to the advise offered him by a number of experienced BPTR shooter. There is a lesson in what he has done for any shooter who wants to do well in BPTR, remain open minded and follow those that are successful.

There are many ways to get there but the journey is shorter if you keep an open mind and follow others who are successful.

He also has the ability to think things through on his own and get over the little bumps along the way that cause other shooters to give up. I could see that early on in our emails and that is the main reason he has been successful with paper patching right out of the gate. It’s not difficult to do, but it seems hard for some to understand and follow some basic guidelines. Those people fail, it’s the ones that can listen and think for themselves that succeed. They just need a push in the right direction and I was lucky to be able to give JKR that push. There are things more important than just winning matches!

[Distant Thunder]

I think you are right, the #6 in .44 caliber might just be magic!

For right now I'm pretty happy with my Brook copy of the Sharps .45 caliber long range paper patch bullet in .44 caliber. I'm looking for answers to questions in my mind and the experimentation and attention to detail required is what I love about BPTR. The learning never really ends and the journey comntinues.

[Kurt]

Man Jim. In appearance looking at those two bullets they are identical to my Sage bullet.
I have a couple cherries cut but I need to harden them yet and get some good cast iron to make some blocks.
I have some aluminum but I don't like casting bullets with aluminum moulds but I could Cutting them without hardening the cutters.

[Kurt]

Jim,
I have a print the Sage bullet was cut with. If you want it it's yours.


I have a .45 cal Gibbs bullet swage die that I had Corbin cut for me but he got the ogive a little longer than I wanted but it sure is a fine shooter in my .45-90's and the 2.6. I was going to have Richard cut one for the .44 like it but he retired before I placed the order.
The .446" diameter is a little tight for all three chambers I shoot it in but it's a very good profiled bullet I can swage just short of 2" long if I wanted to.

[Distant Thunder]

Somewhere in a box or file I have drawings for both of those bullets, but it would be a while before I have things moved to my new place and begin to sort through it all.

The #4 is really just a modification of Brent Danielson’s prolate design. It is simply capped at the tip with a 1/3 caliber radius. The design of #4 was my first attempt to get more weight in a bullet short enough to stabilize in my 18-twist .45-90.

The #1 was Brent’s prolate which was too long for an 18-twist. The #2 was the same basic form but shortened proportionally overall for the 18-twist and those only weighed 505 grains. We both felt that was too light for Creedmoor.

#3 was the same as #4 but was cut in a set of Lyman blocks and those were too small and over heated quickly. The #4 I cut in a set of RCBS blocks and those worked much better but tended to whisker and still do. That one reason I keep looking for a bullet to replace my #4. It also fins at the base if I’m not careful. It is a very temperamental mold and that’s the only reason I even look at other molds.

The #6 just has a shorter major axis to make a shorter ogive. I’m sure it was supposed to have a nose radius but I di not know then how to program that on my then new software to get it to come out like I drew it up.

Not that it matters but #7 & #8 were just pointier ellipticals that I abandoned after fooling with them for a little while and they clearly didn’t hold up in the wind as well as #4 or #6.

Losing the capability of cutting my own molds when I retired was hard and has hampered my experimentation with designs and ideas. Now I buy my molds like everyone else but that has limits and I don’t have as much control over the final product.

The CNC allowed me to make changes quickly and easily because it wasn’t tied to any specific cutters, the tools I used just followed my programmed lines.

Nothing lasts forever!