new rifle

[Kurt]

I might add, A Gong shoot is not a cake walk.
At a gong shoot you get on line and put in a sight setting by a estimate on the windage also just how much you might raise or lower the elevation from your previous days range setting. They usually are not the same as the day before. At a gong shoot first shot is for score. Most of these shoots you don't get a sighter shot. Also you don't have the option waiting out the conditions like you have on a paper shoot where you get unlimited sighters and a long time shooting for score were you can wait out conditions. At the gong shoot your name is called and you shoot in a timely fashion no waiting for the wind gusts or boils to change.
Kurt

[Distant Thunder]

I could go along with the 7* chamber if the FUNNEL started from or at least very near the case mouth ID. With the funnel starting at .022" bigger than the bullet is in diameter I am just having trouble seeing how the bullet jumps this huge gap without bumping up to fill it. If it bumps up to the .472" diameter that is right in front of the chamber it has to then be squeezed down to .450/.458". That's a bunch of squeezing! Much more squeezing than pushing a .459 diameter bullet into the same .450/.458" hole. The .459" being a bore dia. ppb bumping up to fill the case ID in a standard from Shiloh.

Now just maybe a bullet does all that bumping up and squeezing down and comes out the muzzle with no visible ill affects, but I would like to see that as a fact before I spend my hard earned money on that way end to paper rings. I'm just being honest here and wanting to see some kind of proof that it works. Until then I will stay will Shiloh's standard chamber for my new .44-77.

Go ahead and show me that the 7* chamber is a good thing and I'll sing it's praises as much as I do for paper patch bullets. I am not wanting to bash the 7* chamber, I'm wanting to see evidence that it works.

When I went with the Danielson pp chamber in my .45-70 it had already been shown to work. I watched Brent win several matches with it. I don't feel I was giving up anything to him with my standard Shiloh chamber, but I could see the advantage in not having to size my cases as much with his tight chamber. I took my Hepburn with Brent's chamber and put it to the test and I believe it has been shown to work very well. Unfortunately Shiloh doesn't offer Brent's chamber and the next best thing I KNOW of is the Shiloh Standard chamber, which has also been proven to be very accurate with paper patch bullets.

Shiloh does offer Orville's chamber and I did consider it, but I have not seen the proof (yet) that it is as good or better than their standard chamber.

So show me, please, while I have time to make the change. That's all I'm asking here.

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

What you say about gong shoots is all true, pretty much. However, I don't believe I know how my rifle/load is REALLY shooting until I put it on paper at the longest distance I will regularly be shooting at with it. For me that is always at a match as I only have 200 yards here at home. I have won gong matches with loads I know weren't all that accurate. That hasn't happened with paper matches, but I suppose it could if I was better or luckier at reading the conditions. Or had a good spotter! IMHO

[desert deuce]

Distant Thunder, perhaps you are making some readers apprehensive by boldly interjecting fact and reason into the exchange of opinions.

Do it anyway!

[Gussy]

I wish there was an easy way to recover undamaged bullets. That would go quite a ways to answer throating questions.

Should I get a big snow fall this winter, I'll try to push up a big pile without gravel and try a "Kurt recovery system".

[ian45662]

An 8’ deep swimming pool does a great job at stopping bullets. Preserve them very well

[BFD]

I wish there was an easy way to recover undamaged bullets. That would go quite a ways to answer throating questions.

Should I get a big snow fall this winter, I'll try to push up a big pile without gravel and try a "Kurt recovery system".

i did this last year with good success, but shoot a bunch - you won't find them all and some will be damaged by ice, other bullets, rocks, etc. Very instructive, especially with ruling out problems.

[Kurt]

Jim here are some recovered bullets.
This .44 caliber was shot using this chamber

IMG_0841 (2).jpg

44-75 Ballard Everlasting.jpg

This .40-65 rebated boat tail was shot with this chamber.

boat tail bullet.jpeg

[Kurt]

For some reason I could not get the chamber bring into the top post.

IMG_NEW.jpeg

[charlie young]

Distant Thunder,

Sometimes I forget to take into consideration, not everyone has the opportunity to shoot at the distances we do in Eastern Montana. I can walk out into my back yard and shoot at 3 different targets at 900 yds. and one at 1000, with lots of room to be either closer or a lot farther. It doesn't take long at those distances to get an idea of what your rifle is doing, the main trouble is finding a day when the wind isn't trying to blow your hat off.

[Kurt]

Here s a .40 flat based shot using this chamber.

IMG_3334.jpeg

[Kurt]

Distant Thunder,

Sometimes I forget to take into consideration, not everyone has the opportunity to shoot at the distances we do in Eastern Montana. I can walk out into my back yard and shoot at 3 different targets at 900 yds. and one at 1000, with lots of room to be either closer or a lot farther. It doesn't take long at those distances to get an idea of what your rifle is doing, the main trouble is finding a day when the wind isn't trying to blow your hat off.

Charlie I don't have anything longer than 200 either so when I come out your way I test my loads at the Q or Baker, And my 1200 rounds usually are empty before I go home.
As far as the winds I welcome them testing loads

[TAA]

I posted something here way back on page 4. Ever since I’ve been following the continuing comments. I do not know what my CSA 40-70 chamber is but assume a “standard” but it doesn’t matter since it is what I have and I’m not going to change it.

A friend gave me a bunch of paper samples. The (11) samples range in thickness between 0.0045” down to 0.0015”. I have a .40 cal. BACO patch template. The first paper I tried, 0.003” thick, resulted in a wrapped bullet that was too large to enter an unsized, as-fired, case. The next paper is 0.0024” thick and will enter the case and mic’s 0.408”, too large to be considered a “bore” diameter wrapped bullet? My Paul Jones greasers are 0.410” outside diameter. Then I tried the thinnest paper sample, dress pattern paper at 0.0015” thick. That wrapped bullet easily enters the case and mic’s 0.398”.

The slugs are BACO 0.395” dia. examples. So….look for a different thickness paper, lengthen or shorten the patch or specify a different slug diameter when I eventually order a mold?

More to learn and enjoying it all!

Tom

[ian45662]

Kurt those don’t look much different than mine. The last bullet you posted looks like it may have some kind of wrinkle near the bottom but maybe that’s some trick with the lighting?

[Kurt]

Kurt those don’t look much different than mine. The last bullet you posted looks like it may have some kind of wrinkle near the bottom but maybe that’s some trick with the lighting?

No they are very similar. The wrinkle is from the patch getting pulled down a little I think. I see this quite often if I didn't get the case mouth chamfered.
I'm really surprised that your water bullets don't get nose damage hitting the water. I did this once and it flattened the nose slightly. Maybe the allow was softer, it's been a while I used water.