Dual Diameter mould from BACO

[semtav]

Why the antagonism Cody ?
I tried to go back and see what Orville did to you .
Guess I missed it.

[Don McDowell]

Shot this yesterday at 1000 with the Brooks nose pour adjustable I had made up several years ago.. Think we might be on to something this 77 in 45-90 is really going to like.

BED62BBF-6A8E-4DDC-AF3A-594348473130_4_5005_c.jpeg

[jackrabbit]

Why the antagonism Cody ?
I tried to go back and see what Orville did to you .
Guess I missed it.

Well, let's see here. We have a group of intelligent, researched, shooters that are also very good competitors trying to figure out what may be a game changing bullet design, and openly sharing and discussing anything they find with anyone interested. Then on the other hand, we have a guy that has never won a match of any consequence, continually boasts of his supposedly super shooting and groups, and continually pushes designs and methods that don't work show up in the middle of this intelligent discussion and basically try to crap on it. He offered no help on the project, offered no evidence, and tried to insinuated nothing they were doing was new, innovative, or even interesting.

This forum used to be a great place to learn and correspond with the greats. Lately, it seems like we have plenty egotistical idiots that can't hit shit, but want to live out their fantasy, bullshit daydreams on the internet by attempting to dominate this forum. You ever wonder why so many great shooters don't post here anymore? I can't speak for them, but I have my suspicions why.

I am calling out the BULLSHIT! If you don't have anything useful to add to the conversation, and you cannot prove what you are pushing by match results or pictures, shutup or prepare to be called out! The only thing that matters is results, and I refuse to support some Walter Mitty's fantasy.

If you don't like this, or don't agree, prove me wrong. Respect is earned.
Cody

[Kurt]

Why is there so much jib-jab about bullets They all fly down range and hit something, center or dirt
It's not so much the design of the ogive or the whole profile of the bullets, it's the person behind the buttplate that makes the bullet hit center mostly.
I have moulds and a bunch of bullet swage dies of every shape that have collected since the 50's in boxes and drawers and some who knows where We all, or most of us get caught up in the modern high power bullet designs and try to get the most out of them to work in these blackpowder velocity rifles that just cant get them to spin fast enough to hold stability. Dan drew bullet shape from the jacketed he shot during his HP matches and took the copper jackets off and since then the ROT in barrels started to get a tighter ROT to keep them stable at long ranges and holding the wind conditions. And I'm also one that has changed the ROT in my rifles from 1/19 to 1/16 to make them hold stability and fly straight.
The thing with shooting lead bullets, PP or GG, when you get the ROT to tight you start stripping the shanks, especially the PP that are mostly now days patched to bore diameter when the alloy gets to hard to obturate enough to fill the grooves.
I'm sure that the shooters in the 1870's also changed their bullet profiles to get the best results on their targets, maybe more then we do and this makes me wonder why they stuck with the blunt nosed bullets and slower ROT with the rifles they shot at these long range matches.
I look at their recorded targets using those bullets and rifles they used it is pretty impressive with their results.

These 4 bullets below are all .44 calibers I use with 1/16 and 1/17 ROT barrels and all 4 have a different ogive profile and the first on the left out performs them with different powder/wad combinations and primers.

IMG_3523.JPG

These in the box are of the original Sharps bullet profile I use in the 1/19 through the 1/16 and they perform well in 1/19 to 1/16 twists and they stay stable as far as the rear sight will elevate.

IMG_3513.JPG

[jackrabbit]

It looks to me like this little project has been a breath of fresh air for several folks. Things were getting a little stagnant, and this dual diameter PP subject has been an inspiration that rekindled interest. It is something different to try, experiment with, and a reason to go the loading bench and then to the range. Lots of fun and that's what BPCR is all about!

Heck, I hate paper patch and it even has me interested!

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Orville,

You keep mentioning tapered bullets. No where on this dual Diameter bullet is there a taper, my bullet won’t fit in a pp chamber, it is designed for a grease groove chamber period.

The bullet has a .400 long large diameter that is straight, the minor diameter is also straight, no taper none....

I had a similar conversation with Dan Pharris, he too kept mentioning tapered bullets, obviously he didn’t get it, once I explained that my bullet isn’t tapered he immediately shut up. It is nothing similar to any tapered bullet.

I have books full of groups, where I put them, I don’t shoot rocks, I don’t shoot steel for measuring Groups, paper at 200 yards. In 2013 I shot the National Rifle club medal match, with my 38-50, I win the Black powder division, it’s a benchrest match. It was a educational experience

As Dan Theodor so often said: paper don’t lie. I shoot paper to prove to myself what shoots well and what doesn’t, it also give me the luxury, of backing up my testing claims. That way I don’t think it shoots well I know it does, and more importantly I can prove it.

I have pushed, since my Wasserburger moment in 2008 at Phoenix, that undersized bullets and thick paper are very poor choices for long range. That same year at Raton I used a 518 gr .446 bullet with Seth Cole 55w paper, to shoot with witnesses, a 5 shot group of 1.336 inches in the Pedersoli 5@200 match. Grease groove bullet shooters spent a week trying to best that group. Btw that target hangs on my living room wall, to remind me and inspire me to shoot PP. Edwin Perry’s book showed the way with a proper wiping regime that PP is more than competitive, something I strongly believed in, to the point of selling the book to share with my fellow shooters


If true dual Diameter bullets wasn’t something new, it would used by many competitors and in common use, it isn’t. Moulds would be commonplace, and if you have been shooting real dual diameter bullets, why haven’t you shared it with the rest of us?

To refresh,

[attachment=0]FE603D06-FA8E-48DA-8BC8-55C60D70C92A.jpeg[/attachment]

There is no taper in my bullet, so in future conversations you need to eliminate that, because it’s not on bit relevant to this thread and subject contained in this thread, it just muddies the waters. And has not a thing to do with this conversation.

Kenny Wasserburger

[semtav]

Why the antagonism Cody ?
I tried to go back and see what Orville did to you .
Guess I missed it.

Well, let's see here. We have a group of intelligent, researched, shooters that are also very good competitors trying to figure out what may be a game changing bullet design, and openly sharing and discussing anything they find with anyone interested. Then on the other hand, we have a guy that has never won a match of any consequence, continually boasts of his supposedly super shooting and groups, and continually pushes designs and methods that don't work show up in the middle of this intelligent discussion and basically try to crap on it. He offered no help on the project, offered no evidence, and tried to insinuated nothing they were doing was new, innovative, or even interesting.

This forum used to be a great place to learn and correspond with the greats. Lately, it seems like we have plenty egotistical idiots that can't hit shit, but want to live out their fantasy, bullshit daydreams on the internet by attempting to dominate this forum. You ever wonder why so many great shooters don't post here anymore? I can't speak for them, but I have my suspicions why.

I am calling out the BULLSHIT! If you don't have anything useful to add to the conversation, and you cannot prove what you are pushing by match results or pictures, shutup or prepare to be called out! The only thing that matters is results, and I refuse to support some Walter Mitty's fantasy.

If you don't like this, or don't agree, prove me wrong. Respect is earned.
Cody

OK Cody, Your point is taken.
I've never met Orville and the only thing I know is he won the Montana 1000 at one point with a PP load. I may even be wrong there.
But I think there are a lot of people on here that contribute a lot That haven't won a big match.
I found it interesting That Sharps had a DD bullet, And that it had a long taper that might correlate with the shallow throated chambers that Orville likes.
Not everyone that comes here is interested in shooting National Long Range matches, They aren't going to put thousands of rounds downrange yearly to get the perfect load. So what advice is best for them.

I've spent the last month or two researching old post abuot the 110, and I see alot of beginners get a 45-110. and then come here for advice on the perfect load. And I don't think I agree with a lot of that advice, but thats another story for another day.

[jackrabbit]

Yes, you are right about a people that contribute a lot and have never won a big match. I didn't intend to communicate that you HAVE to be a big match winner in order to contribute to the conversation. I meant that statements need to be backed up with references, pictures, match results, etc. If Orville thinks this design is nothing new, show us a picture or list a reference that shows it from days gone by. If someone thinks their method works the best, prove it in a match or pictures of groups. "Because I said so" doesn't mean anything.

I do also sincerely think that folks that take their ideas to a big match and perform well under match pressure, with a bunch of witnesses have extra credibility. It bothers me that they seem to be treated as equals with those whose only knowledge is theoretical. I want to hear what the winners are doing and see what products and methods are winning. I really don't care what Walter Mitty is doing in his fantasy...

As far as your comments about the 45-110, I agree! I was a beginner once and got sidetracked by advice from idiots. I want to hear what people that are shooting their 110's well are are doing. If no one contradicts bad advice, it gets taken as the truth.
Thank you for your posts and all your contributions to the sport, I appreciate them.
Cody

[Gussy]

Probably irrelevant to the discussion, but 20 years ago I started shooting BPCR. I used a Lyman Postel .45 and the .40 version too.

At some point, I ventured into different moulds. Last one about 5 years ago. After thinking about my early shooting, I said to hell with it and bought a Brooks Postel mould. Basically what I started with.

If you have a good bullet, it will shoot. It's finding the sweet spot load which takes time. After that, pull the trigger. There's no magic bullet that beats trigger time.

YMMV, spend the mould money on powder and lead!

[jackrabbit]

I tend to agree, Gussy. The thing is, the search for the magic bullet is what keeps some of us going. The research and experimenting is all part of the fun.

There was a day (long ago) when blow tubing in a match was thought to be silly....

[Kurt]

Well Cody,

Wiping is just another re invention.

[bruce m]

with regards the tapered bullet that orville mentions, it surely existed and was used.
we must remember that there were many uses for rifles.
the two obvious ones are long range target shooting and bison shooting.
long range target ammo would have been impractical for bison shooting with its shallow seating in the case and careful fitting of the patched bullet to the bore requiring wiping for every shot.
shooting dirty in the 2 7/8 case would have permitted good charges to be used with grease wads and the bullets seated deeper in the case.
bullets would have been less likely to fall out during handling and carriage.
the tapered feature would have allowed the bullets to be seated to a depth which allowed chambering in a dirty barrel.
there is nothing wrong with either type of ammo FOR THE JOB IN HAND.
horses for courses.
of course this is just me surmising, but it is a thing i have often wondered about.
bruce.

[powderburnt]

From a 2008 post.

Post by Josh A. » Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:02 pm

"Arnie, you must have known where I was headed with this thread. Here is part of the next installment:

Image



1) A stepped cast paper patch bullet from a mould that Steve Brooks cut. It drops 370grs with a 30-1 mix. Seems like .023 onion skin was the paper. The front end will chamber on the lands and bore ride and the rear end patches up to groove diameter. I load it over a .060 LDPE wad with and 45 grs. of H4895 it runs 2030fps. A fast, slippery bullet and when that lead hits hide at that velocity it is a brutal killer.

2) A Paul Jones flat point bullet that is .400grs in 30-1. It is nothing more than his creedmoor with the nose lopped off. I can get it near 2000fps real easy and it is tough on game. It does seem to lead sometimes and at others nothing. I dunno.

A huge note for all of you guys hand annealing and shooting dead soft case necks. DON'T DO THIS! Case necks need to be pretty close to perfect hardness for these lead bullet/smokeless loads. If you are using a torch, spinning, etc and seeing ANY color your necks are going to be too soft for the stress lead bullets and smokeless are going to put on them. Either stick to black powder or change your annealing process. Cheap advice, do with it what you will.

Anyway, that paper patch bullet is fast, has good BC and nearly turns itself inside out in a game animal without shedding any weight. Accuracy can run from excellent to heavy verticle stringing. Good loading practice applies here.

More to come..."

It
seems we go in circles more than we know.

HG

[bruce m]

good comments regarding annealing, or more correctly partial annealing.
bruce.

[beltfed]

powderburnt,
Indeed, I remember Josh Amerine.
May he rest in peace.
I bought my Custom K&P barrelled original40-65 Hi wall from him back in 2006. Built by Duane Gray in Abiline,TX
It is Still My Favorite BPCR rifle.
My first DDEPP bullet was designed for it
and it shoots out to 1K. "Nothing new under the sun."
And, I, too shoot PP bullets thru my deer rifle.
beltfed/arnie