Bullet Nose setback not slump.

[Kurt]

Snow density makes a big difference on penetration through the snow.
A dry snow in a natural snow bank I have lost bullets that went through 12' and I followed the track it cut down the line.
A wet heavy snow 6-7 feet snow piled up depends if there are air pockets in the pile.
I really only care how the bullet keeps it's nose shape. I don't want a stay money bullet look like one between a RN and postell.
When you have a bullet that leaves the muzzle look like it did before it took the trip down the bore.

When a bullet holds it's profile like this KAL .44 507 gr and it misses it's target it's not the bullets fault.
The only imperfection is the patch wrinkle just up from the base. This might have happen when I pushed the bullet in the tight case mouth.

IMG_3334.jpeg

[BFD]

Kurt, how does the length of the nose on this bullet compare to the length on an unfired bullet. You can't tell that it has held its shape just by eyeball. At least, I can't.

[beltfed]

Seems to me that this latest "snow shot" bullet has a relatively short ogive/nose
and so would have relatively less nose setback.
beltfed/arnie

[beltfed]

Kurt,
Should have asked.
Is that mark at base of ogive/top of body?

[Kurt]

Brent,
Unfortunately I never took that measurement. I was just interested in the obturation and how the whole profile of the bullet was in relation to the place of the patch and what the effects of the wads had under the bullet.
You have to look at bullets that were actually shot using your loading procedures to see how it ends up when it clears the muzzle. Compressing a bullet between two solid objects won't tell you how an actual bullet changes when it gets fired.
A bullet will shorten when the PP obturate filling the grooves but holding the ogive integrity to me is important.
If we get any decent snow this winter I will take your prolate and I will take some before and after measurements of the ogive setback using the same load. This bullet with that one thousands reduction at the shank/ogive junction will give a good reference for measuring the setback.

The bottom row of bullets are all the same powder load but the alloy is from 1/12 Tin/Lead too 1/25 T/L. #2 is my 1/18 T/L/A alloy. You can see the setback going from left to right. The far right is almost a round nose.
The top 4 are your pronates. The first on the left was 1/14 alloy and #2-3 with 1/16 T/L a single .06 polly and 83 gr 1.5 Swiss ? lot #
? shot with your powder loads and wad. except the far right was shot in my .45-90 Shiloh with 93 gr of 1.5 Swiss.

IMG_2276.jpeg

IMG_3292.jpeg

[Kurt]

Kurt,
Should have asked.
Is that mark at base of ogive/top of body?

Yes Arnie.
This bullet has a longer shank than the ogive. I don't like the Money bullets that have the ogive as long as the shank. They need to be pushed harder to hold stability.

[BFD]

Kurt, I don't have them anymore, but last year I shot some 12:1 in the snow and was surprised that they bumped up exactly like the 16:1. They didn't shoot any better however.

I am hoping that maybe labop can try squishing some lead at different temps. I think it might matter a fair bit.

[labop]

BFD
What alloy and what temperature do you have in mind?
labop

[BFD]

16 to 1. Do some at room temp (75ish) and then as cold as you can go. Below freezing for sure.

[labop]

BFD
I would recommend we do about 0 F and 100 F even though the plot might not be perfectly linear we could interpolate and cover about any shooting weather. The drop weight test would be the easiest to do. It takes longer to get the specimen set up for compression as I do not have a hot or cold chamber that wraps around the load train like in a real lab.
labop

[labop]

BFD
I would recommend we do about 0 F and 100 F even though the plot might not be perfectly linear we could interpolate and cover about any shooting weather. The drop weight test would be the easiest to do. It takes longer to get the specimen set up for compression as I do not have a hot or cold chamber that wraps around the load train like in a lab.
labop

[BFD]

More is always better, and it would take 3 to see a hint of a curve and 4 to test for a curve. But 2 beats 0 infinitely. Do what you can and it will be good. I'm really interested in this and I can think of three lines of evidence that it matters.

[labop]

I have added 12-1 alloy to the spreadsheet after I ran a second heat. The results are reported in brackets as I had an outlier on a compression and hardness test which is not included in the reported average. I am not sure what the issue is, maybe non-homogeneous mix , inconsistent mold temperature, equipment failure etc. I have checked the composition numbers for both heats and they look good. Maximum solubility of tin in lead is 19% so we are good there. I am going to re-melt heats 1 and 2 together and call it heat 3 and perform all three test again after aging. The results look like we have some diminishing returns in comparing 16-1 to 12-1.
The spreadsheet has been reformatted to include more notes. In addition to the re-test of 12-1 there are two wheel weigh alloys on the schedule.
labop

[labop]

I noticed this morning the compsitions listed for the lead-tin alloys are incorrect. When I mixed, for example, 20 parts lead and 1 part tin then we have 95.24% lead and 4.76% tin. I will make the change on the next addition to the spreadsheet.
labop

[labop]

I started a new subject: Hardness, Compression and Drop Weight Test to post the most recent spread sheet.

labop