Sizing Cast Bullets


PDA






Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 05:02 PM
I just cast my first .38 cal boolits ever last night. All went well. I shot a couple hundred today and am very happy.

Now I want to cast for .30 cal rifle with a gas check.

My Question: I am looking for a .311 dia bullet. Is there a way to use a .309 mold and a the Lee .311 Sizer Lube Kit to make that happen?

I'm thinking that if the bullet drops at .309, running it through a .311 tube isn't going to any effect on it. Am I correct?

Thanks for any input :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Sizing Cast Bullets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wgaynor
November 25, 2012, 05:06 PM
You are correct. If you want a .311 bullet, you need a mould that is made to cast that kind of bullet. Then you need a corresponding sizer.

A .309 mould might cast an oversized bullet, but I doubt if it will be .311.

rcmodel
November 25, 2012, 05:06 PM
Yes, you are correct.

They have to start out bigger before you can make them smaller by sizing.

rc

Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 05:12 PM
Thanks fellas :cool:

Next question: I found a .311 G/C mold with a round nose profile. Can I install the gas check by running the bullet - nose first, with the gas check on the base, base on the ram, into the Lee Sizer?

Is there a better way to install Gas Checks on round nose bullets?

Thanks again.

rcmodel
November 25, 2012, 05:17 PM
Thats the way it works for any bullet shape.

Please read this:

http://leeprecision.com/bullet-casting/lube-and-sizing-kit/

rc

Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 05:27 PM
Awesome. Thanks rc!

blarby
November 25, 2012, 06:30 PM
I found a .311 G/C mold with a round nose profile. Can I install the gas check by running the bullet - nose first, with the gas check on the base, base on the ram, into the Lee Sizer?


Yes, but with a caveat.

While lee makes this out to be a flawless operation, it is not.

This method slaps the check onto the bullet when it is supported only by friction in the sizer die, not seats the bullet centered into the check- if that makes any sense.

Sizers which support the bullet nose and seat the bullet into the check while both pieces are mechanically centered have a much lower failure rate.

When I first started applying checks using the lee method, as recommended by RC above, it did work- but the failure rate was about 8% out of the first 200 I did. I got a little better at pre-seating them, but I still had blowouts.

When you shank one, you will know it right away, and it'll happen about midstroke as the improperly seated check is wedged some sort of sideways in the sizer die. Some can be re-seated...some cannot. Some have a mild deformation...some of them are quite major. Two things work against ya on this one : mould lines in the GC shank, and the sprue shear line on the bottom of the bullet.

Gas checks are cheap, and its not the end of the world- just something to be aware of when it happens.

Perfectly pre-seating the bullet into the gas-check by hand on a hard surface helps- but its not 100% either. I'll add that pre-seating the dang things is another time step you can get rid of by having a better sizer.

Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 06:32 PM
Which installation method do you prefer blarby? Thanks

blarby
November 25, 2012, 06:58 PM
I prefer the GC application process on the Saeco.

The lyman and rcbs both use a push through method of applying the gas-checks, much like the lee...only backwards.

The ones I've seen for sale and had the opportunity to handle, anyways.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/756252/saeco-lubri-sizer

See that little flange ? the one on the left side ?

It holds the bottom of the lube sizing die travel pin assembly in place, allowing you to just set the check on the top of the travel pin, and seat the bullet into the check with positive force on both sides of the equation.

Its a little bit slower than bangin 'em through full auto style, I suppose...but the results are significantly better.

And, I like being able to get 1k bullets with 1k checks.... not 967 like my first 1k turned out.

Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 07:05 PM
Appreciate it blarby :)

I'm on a budget and that system exceeds my tumble lube, finance limits.

Thanks though

rsrocket1
November 25, 2012, 08:39 PM
If you want, why not try shooting the bullets as is without a GC? If you are using a pistol powder at a reduced speed, you might not need a GC. If you are trying to reach jacketed velocities, then a GC is needed. OR you can try paper patching. That might take you a year to master, although some folks got it working well on their first try.

Duckdog
November 25, 2012, 09:10 PM
I use the Lee sizers and can not really say I have head any issues with failures. Not even with my homemade checks. Give the Lee sizers a chance. they are pretty cheap and you'll porbably like them as well.

When you put the check on the bullet, just make sure you push it on all the way and you should be fine.

Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 09:22 PM
If you want, why not try shooting the bullets as is without a GC? If you are using a pistol powder at a reduced speed, you might not need a GC. If you are trying to reach jacketed velocities, then a GC is needed. OR you can try paper patching. That might take you a year to master, although some folks got it working well on their first try.

My goal is to reach out to 300 yards accurately with a 30-06, M1A and 200 yds with a 30-30.

I've shot a few hundred rounds of Hunter Supply and Missouri Bullet, cast bullets over Unique. In order to reach out to that distance, I believe that I need to increase the velocity to speeds that will require a gas check and a different powder.

I'm interested in powder suggestions, as I'm still researching.

I'm definitely interested in paper patching, but one thing at at time. :)

Appreciate any input or suggestions, thanks

res7s
November 25, 2012, 09:22 PM
I use both Lee sizers and a Lyman 450. I've had no trouble seating GC's on any of my bullets. I think if either the GC or bullet shank was of the wrong diameter it would cause a problem, but if the shank fits in the GC it should crimp on with no problems. I am interested in hearing what other problems(other than the over/undersize check/shank one) I may run into if the OP doesn't mind the hijack.

Hungry1
November 25, 2012, 09:34 PM
I don't mind.

Hey Res :)

grubbylabs
November 25, 2012, 10:11 PM
I size and GC all of my bullets with the Lee set up. One of the few things from Lee I think they got right. Actually most of their casting stuff is quite good.

popper
November 26, 2012, 12:16 AM
LeverEvolution 30-30 are supposed to be effective and accurate to 200 yds. 2400 + fps. You will be doing good to get to 2000 fps with cast so expect to be 'lobbing' them to 200, drop will be large.

GLOOB
November 26, 2012, 06:00 AM
This method slaps the check onto the bullet when it is supported only by friction in the sizer die
Well, the check is installed by hand. Then you place the bullet on the seating stem. At this point you have gravity holding the check on the bullet. Or more accurately, gravity is holding the bullet against the check. Then you put the oversized bullet through the sizer. At this point you're mashing the gas check against the bullet with a pretty good amount of force to get the bullet through the sizer. If you do not believe this is so, try pushing the bullet through the sizing die with a pencil, instead of your press. So there's a heck of a lot more than friction holding the gas check on while things are sized and crimped.

not seats the bullet centered into the check- if that makes any sense.
Doesn't make any sense to me. When you forcefully squeeze an oversized bullet wearing an oversized gas check through a narrower diameter sizing die, how in the world can the gas check NOT be centered?

Perfectly pre-seating the bullet into the gas-check by hand on a hard surface helps- but its not 100% either.
The seating stem is a hard, flat surface, more or less exactly perpendicular to the axis of the sizing tube. When you push the bullet through, it gets things pretty close to perfect via this geometry + the pressure of pushing the bullet through the sizer. I mean, when the bullet is pushed through the sizer, it's not just a tiny carbide ring. It's a long, tightly fitting tube with a very slight constriction. It centers and straightens the bullet as it goes through. Then the pressure of sizing pushes the gas check hard against the seating stem; and even if the base of the boolit is not straight, the pressure of the die on the oversize gas check, itself, would press the check flat against the seating stem as it goes through. So it's the angle of the seating stem surface that determines how straight the check goes on. No matter how half ass you seat it, or how perfect, the check will end up following the shape of the seating stem. I have never seen a check go on crooked, despite crooked bases/sprue lines. I GC and shoot most of my "blems" with base defects, and if I didn't label the bag, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart once the check is on. The OAL of the blems probably has more variation, but the checks go on straight.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have read plenty of posts where people complain of this problem. There's even a guy on Cast Boolits that invented a slow and complicated gas check seating device to fix this problem (and the mechanical principles it uses seem to be more or less the same ones in effect using the Lee sizing dies, except I suppose you're taking that tiny bit of ram slop out of the equation - and then likely losing this marginally more perfect alignment when you size the bullet, anyway). I am not sure if it's the level of straightness that I'm overlooking, because I don't measure my gas checks with a micrometer. Or if the inventor maybe never used a Lee sizer, properly. I'm really curious why his invention needed inventing. If it's the level of straightness down to the fraction of a mic that accuracy hounds are after, I wonder that the chamber pressures don't alter the gas check shape/angle just a little when the round lights off, anyway. I'd think the check would be fire-formed to the base of the bullet. Or maybe this problem of crooked checks is much worse - obvious, even to the naked eye. But it only occurs when the gas check shank is too big for the check or when the bullet is really short and stubby, so I've never seen it?

I'll add that pre-seating the dang things is another time step you can get rid of by having a better sizer.
Are you saying you can just drop the bullet and gas check into a "better sizer" and it automatically seats the check for you? I assumed you have to at least have the gas check on the shank before the sizing, using any method. I'd be interesting in hearing how this works.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm genuinely curious what these better sizers do better. Apart from the Star lubesizer, which has obvious advantages and receives universal praise.... despite pushing the bullet and check through the sizing die nose first, just like the Lee.

Duckdog
November 26, 2012, 06:42 AM
I run my 06 to 2150 fps with no leading with a lee 170 gr FNGC, 31 gr of XMP 5744, and a gas check with no leading. Darn accurate, too. I use Lee liquid Alox for the lube. The alloy is air cooled wheel weights with a bit of tin. This also expands nicely for hunting. I would start lower, but you can definitely hot rod them.

budman46
November 26, 2012, 12:40 PM
hungry1,
if you haven't bought a .30 mould and like lee, i'd recommend their tl designed for the 7.62x39. liquid alox-ed, gas-checked and sized .312", it's become my go-to bullet for anything .30; 308, .30-06, 7.5 swiss, 7.5 french, .303 brit, 7.62 mosin, 7.7 jap, etc.

i load 17g of 2400 for 1800fps (chrono'd) for all but the -06...it needs a tad more. all whack rocks in my river out to 400+yds with proper hold-over.

no leading issues with bullets cast to wheel-weight hardness after thousands of rounds.

popper
November 26, 2012, 01:55 PM
1800 fps, 170 gr. == 15" drop @ 200. 2200 fps, 170gr. == 30" @ 300. Energy will be ~ 1/2 that at muzzle. Pointy boolits gives ~3" gain over FN. Powders will be different for 308 & 30/30, for better performance.

blarby
November 26, 2012, 06:24 PM
Are you saying you can just drop the bullet and gas check into a "better sizer" and it automatically seats the check for you?

Yup, pretty much.

You fold the stop flange in, set the check on the stop, put the bullet on it- and squeeze.

The nose profiled top punch centers the pressure- and seats the check against the now reinforced flat surface.

Flip the flange out, and push it through to lube, and pull it back up.

There it is.

GLOOB
November 26, 2012, 06:46 PM
I gotta say I'm be very surprised if that is faster than using a Lee sizer. With all the flipping of the flange and placing the GC in the die taking place of putting the GC on the bullet shank. Not to mention, you then have to take the bullet out when you're done. With a Lee, you just keep on popping more, not unlike a Star lubrisizer. The obvious downside is that the Lee doesn't lube. (Of course, the plus side is tumble lubing is going to save you a lot of time, anyway).

And I'd be even more surprised if those "better sizers" seat checks any straighter.

The nose profiled top punch centers the pressure
If a nose profiled top punch centered a bullet that well, we wouldn't need to worry about neck concentricity, cuz a fitted seater plug isn't too far removed from a nose profiled top punch. I'd bet on the Lee sizer method over this in a test of GC straightness. Pushing a bullet through a sizing die does wonders for aligning it straight.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I would just like to be convinced that a better sizer is worth the investment of time and money before trying one. And I'm far from convinced. You have apparently used both, but maybe you're not explaining the benefits clear enough.

The lyman and rcbs both use a push through method of applying the gas-checks, much like the lee...only backwards.

The ones I've seen for sale and had the opportunity to handle, anyways.
Trying to put the check on like the Lee, only backwards, is not the same at all. There's nothing there to straighten the check. If the base of the bullet has a piece of sprue sticking out, the GC would not necessarily seat flat, no matter how carefully you set it on there to start. The drag on the sizing die will push the check against the sprue, causing it to want to tilt just as it's being sized/crimped - off axis and deformed. Even your Saeco will have some theoretical issues with either straightness or concentricity, depending on if it crimps the check on while it seats, or not, before pushing the bullet base-first through the sizing die. So if you're extrapolating the problems with the Lee system by what you've experienced with the Lyman and RCBS, then you might be jumping to the wrong conclusions. Pushing the bullet through nose-first solves a lot of problems. The Lee sizer crimps on the GC pretty darn close to truly straight/flat, the very definition of concentric, and always tight against the base of the bullet, every time, no matter what the base of the bullet actually looks like.

Hungry1
November 26, 2012, 06:47 PM
hungry1,
if you haven't bought a .30 mould and like lee, i'd recommend their tl designed for the 7.62x39. liquid alox-ed, gas-checked and sized .312", it's become my go-to bullet for anything .30; 308, .30-06, 7.5 swiss, 7.5 french, .303 brit, 7.62 mosin, 7.7 jap, etc.

i load 17g of 2400 for 1800fps (chrono'd) for all but the -06...it needs a tad more. all whack rocks in my river out to 400+yds with proper hold-over.

no leading issues with bullets cast to wheel-weight hardness after thousands of rounds.

Thanks budan46, is the one you're referring to?

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/339539/lee-2-cavity-bullet-mold-ctl312-160-2r-762x39mm-312-diameter-160-grain-tumble-lube-2-ogive-radius-gas-check

Is that bullet too pointy for a Marlin tube mag? If so, I can always order a different one, just curious.

Thanks

blarby
November 26, 2012, 10:01 PM
I gotta say I'm be very surprised if that is faster than using a Lee sizer. With all the flipping of the flange and placing the GC in the die taking place of putting the GC on the bullet shank. Not to mention, you then have to take the bullet out when you're done. With a Lee, you just keep on popping more, not unlike a Star lubrisizer. The obvious downside is that the Lee doesn't lube. (Of course, the plus side is tumble lubing is going to save you a lot of time, anyway).

And I'd be even more surprised if those "better sizers" seat checks any straighter.

Quote:
The nose profiled top punch centers the pressure
If a nose profiled top punch centered a bullet that well, we wouldn't need to worry about neck concentricity, cuz a fitted seater plug isn't too far removed from a nose profiled top punch. I'd bet on the Lee sizer method over this in a test of GC straightness. Pushing a bullet through a sizing die does wonders for aligning it straight.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I would just like to be convinced that a better sizer is worth the investment of time and money before trying one. And I'm far from convinced. You have apparently used both, but maybe you're not explaining the benefits clear enough.
Quote:
The lyman and rcbs both use a push through method of applying the gas-checks, much like the lee...only backwards.

The ones I've seen for sale and had the opportunity to handle, anyways.
Trying to put the check on like the Lee, only backwards, is not the same at all. There's nothing there to straighten the check. If the base of the bullet has a piece of sprue sticking out, the GC would not necessarily seat flat, no matter how carefully you set it on there to start. The drag on the sizing die will push the check against the sprue, causing it to want to tilt just as it's being sized/crimped - off axis and deformed. Even your Saeco will have some theoretical issues with either straightness or concentricity, depending on if it crimps the check on while it seats, or not, before pushing the bullet base-first through the sizing die. So if you're extrapolating the problems with the Lee system by what you've experienced with the Lyman and RCBS, then you might be jumping to the wrong conclusions. Pushing the bullet through nose-first solves a lot of problems. The Lee sizer crimps on the GC pretty darn close to truly straight/flat, the very definition of concentric, and always tight against the base of the bullet, every time, no matter what the base of the bullet actually looks like.

Ok.

You ever used one ?

GLOOB
November 27, 2012, 02:34 AM
Yes, I've used a Lee sizer in 223 and 7mm. And no I've never used a Saeco.

Re: Saeko:
From your description of how it works, it sounds like it seats the check pretty good. But when you push the bullet through the sizer, backwards, there's no guarantee it'll stay straight while the check gets squeezed down, now is there? Maybe it stays straight every time. I wouldn't know, which is why I said theoretical.

Or if the check gets sized/crimped when it's seated, then it should stay on there pretty straight, indeed, even while sizing the bullet, afterward. But then you just may have an issue with concentricity, if the gas check shank isn't perfectly filled out or otherwise asymmetrical. The check would be on there straight/flat, but it might not be perfectly concentric with the rest of the bullet. When it goes through the sizer, it would then center, but might squish a little on one side, just a hair, or even tilt. Not by enough to worry about, but it's still a theoretical issue that is addressed by nose-first sizing, since nose-first centers and sizes the bullet and check at the same time, while keeping the gas check flat against the pusher/seater stem while it's being crimped on.

From your description of how a Lee sizer seats checks, with the check held on "only by friction," it just doesn't sound right. I can't figure out how you were getting "blowouts." Were you pushing the bullets through backwards?

Sorry if I'm sounding argumentative, again. But your description of the benefits of your bullet sizer for seating gas checks still leaves something to be desired. Is it faster? How much faster does $200 get you? Do you use a hard lube? That's a good enough reason in itself. Does it actually seat the checks straighter, and how have you verified this?

I've got 750 223 bullets in front of me, all sized/checked with the Lee sizer. I've yet to have a single mishap of any sort, so I for sure haven't had any blowouts. Curiosity getting the better of me, I have randomly pulled out 30 of them and stood them on end on a sheet of glass. I can't visually detect any degree of tilt to any of them. Not a one. And small diameter bullets like 223 are the ones I hear people complaining about how hard it is to get the gas check on straight. As I have explained, it doesn't matter how crooked you put the check on of how uneven the base of your boolit. If you can fit the check over the shank, the Lee sizer should put the oversize crimp-on type of GC on straight, every time. I don't understand how it could fail. Except maybe with short, stubby pistol rounds, the check might start to get squeezed down before the bullet straightens?

Maybe you can share with us which specific bullets and which brand of gas checks you have these blowouts with? I'm not calling BS, I'm just trying to learn something.

SSN Vet
November 27, 2012, 10:44 AM
I've only loaded about fifty or so gas checked .30 cal bullets...

But all I did was set the check on the bech, press the bullet into it and then push then through the Lee sizer...

No troubles.

The frustration I've had shooting 100 yds with lead is that a pretty significant adustment was needed to the rifle sights. And since I also shoot jacketed at full velocity, I didn't "appreciate" having to fuss with the sights so much.

IMHO, if your going to shoot cast, you set your rifle up for cast and then stick to it exclusively.

GLOOB
November 27, 2012, 12:52 PM
For my 7mm, I just pour some checks into the lid of the pellet tin I keep them in. I dip the end of the bullet into a GC to pick it up, then size. When there are no more right side up checks, I shake a little and/or pour in some more.

The shanks on my 7mm are just barely big enough to hold the check. I "Lee-mented" the shanks on the mold, and it's imroved, but 1 out of 30 still falls off while I'm tumble lubing. The edge of the shank is also slightly rounded. So it's easy to pick up a GC like that. I just put the fallen off checks back on, and when the LLA dries, they stay on good enough to seat and shoot without any further problems; I don't seat deep enough for them to fall off in the case.

With my 223 bullets, the shank is a tighter fit, and the edge of the shank is sharper. I have to pick up a check and snap it on with a finger. It helps to hold the tiny bullet if I wear a glove, and sometimes I even smear a little LLA on my finger to help pick up checks.

In either case, I waste no effort to make the check straight. The 223 checks, in particular, are quite often crazy crooked. If I let go and look at it, the bullet will be grossly slanted while sitting on the seating stem. But after they go through, they all come out looking the same.

Hungry1
November 27, 2012, 06:16 PM
I've only loaded about fifty or so gas checked .30 cal bullets...

But all I did was set the check on the bech, press the bullet into it and then push then through the Lee sizer...

No troubles.

The frustration I've had shooting 100 yds with lead is that a pretty significant adustment was needed to the rifle sights. And since I also shoot jacketed at full velocity, I didn't "appreciate" having to fuss with the sights so much.

IMHO, if your going to shoot cast, you set your rifle up for cast and then stick to it exclusively.
I hear that. The limited amount of lead shooting I've done so far with reduced velocity loads in 30-06 and 30-30 required a significant change in elevation.

With the 1903 Springfield it's not as big a deal as the 30-30, due to way the sights are set up. I'll just make notes as to what elevation markings are needed for cast rounds.

For my 30-30 with skinner sights, it's a pain in the rear. I need to order their extended post sight or find another iron sight alternative.

GLOOB
November 27, 2012, 07:16 PM
The frustration I've had shooting 100 yds with lead is that a pretty significant adustment was needed to the rifle sights.

A very simplistic calculation of drop:
At 2500 fps, it takes a bullet 0.12 seconds for it to reach a target at 100 yards, not factoring air resistance.
In that time, it will drop:

y = Vo t - .5 g t^2
y = 0M/s * 0.12s - .5 (9.81M/s^2)*0.12s^2
y= -0.07069 meters
y= -7.1 centimeters

at 1800 fps, it takes the bullet 0.166667 seconds to reach the target
y= -0.13625 meters
y= -13.625 cm

The delta is 6.5cm more drop at 100 yards. About 2.5". About 20 clicks on your average scope. You'd probably want to adjust higher, yet, to retain more of your "point-blank" range at the cost of a higher deviation at the peak.'

The previous owner of my 7mm-08 shot 500 yard silhouettes. So I have plenty of elevation on my scope rings, created by the coke can shim he put under the rear. :)

Duckdog
November 27, 2012, 10:55 PM
My programs show the bullet drop to be much, much less than 15" @ 200 yards, depending on what you are sighting in at.

Point blank shows a drop of 4.86" for a 170 gr FNGC @ 2150 FPS if sighted in at 150 yards, and the Lee calculator a drop of 4.66" for the same. I know from shooting this load that this is correct. Lee shows she's already at 12.56" @ 200 yards, so the drop starts pretty quick.

This bullet makes for a fine hunting round as well at this velocity, as long as your alloy is good.

GLOOB
November 27, 2012, 11:11 PM
Simplifying velocity as a constant, I'm calculating 3.76" drop for a 2150fps bullet at 150 yards. So that's not too bad, compared to 4.66/4.86". Wind resistance slows the bullet, so the time for the bullet to reach the target takes longer than I'm figuring. It makes sense that the real drop would be more.

The Lee calculation of 12.56 + 4.66" at 200 yards makes a total of 17.2." My calculation shows 15.04". Not bad, at all, for high school physics.

But more importantly, good job getting a cast bullet to make 2150fps with just a gas check. :)

blarby
November 28, 2012, 02:10 AM
lyman and hornady.

lemme see if I can dig some of the wonked ones up ,or if I allready pitched 'em.

Sorry I cant reply as much... workin a ton right now !

budman46
November 28, 2012, 09:51 AM
hungry1,

the 165g lee tl wouldn't be the thing for a tube magazine unless you loaded only two rounds; at minimum the nose could become battered; a rounded or flat nose would be more appropriate. i like the 165 tl because it feeds in everything i shoot, where rounded or flat noses can hang up during feeding from staggered magazines on some of my milsurp bolt actions.

gloob,

i agree with your comments on lee vs. "better sizers". for me, changing sizer dies on the lyman or rcbs was an anxious moment; alignment of a sizer in the press could be iffy due to the lube in the machine. cross-threading the finely threaded retainer nut is very easy.

i dumped two "better sizers", assorted dies, lube and many nose punches after experimenting with lee's push thru and liquid alox. faster, cheaper, easier to use, liquid alox perfroms as well or better for me. a pal told me to tumble my finished bullets in motor-mica, keeping them from being sticky...gotta try it.

Hungry1
November 28, 2012, 05:55 PM
hungry1,

the 165g lee tl wouldn't be the thing for a tube magazine unless you loaded only two rounds; at minimum the nose could become battered; a rounded or flat nose would be more appropriate. i like the 165 tl because it feeds in everything i shoot, where rounded or flat noses can hang up during feeding from staggered magazines on some of my milsurp bolt actions.


I appreciate the feed back budman. I did order that mold. I'm going to try out some Accurate 5744 with it. Cant wait!

Duckdog
November 28, 2012, 07:39 PM
I just shot a slug of 170 grainers at 2150 fps with just a gas check a couple of weeks ago with no leading, so if done right, luck really doesn't play into it. It takes a bit of messing around to get the right combo.

A properly sized bullet with the right powder and lube and it is pretty simple.

What range are you talking about sighting in at to get that 15" drop at 200 yards? I made a typo on the lee data, It is 12.54" @ 250 yards as a total, not in addition to the 4.66". The other figures were at 200 yards with a sight in at 150 yards.

I'm looking at the trajectory charts and at 200 yards in point plank, with that 170 gr bullet at 2150 with a BC of .268, it is 4.86" of total drop,(zeroed @ 150 yds). I have shot this for a long time and it is pretty close.

I am wondering if we are talking two different things. I am talking actual bullet path and what one would have for drop in sighted in at 150 yards, when you may be talking total drop???

GLOOB
November 28, 2012, 10:09 PM
Yeah. I was figuring total drop. The bullet starts dropping soon as it leaves the barrel. I guess im a newb at firearm specific ballistics Yeah i misunderstood. I was figuring the drop from laser bore poa and actual impact. Thanks for the clarification.

Btw the weight of the bullet is completely irrelevant in a ballistics calculation aside from its indirect relationship with BC.

chris in va
November 29, 2012, 12:44 AM
I would NOT recommend using a lead bullet in a gas semiauto. Tried a GC Lee 155 in my Saiga, locked it up solid after 40 rounds. A lead ring formed in the gas block where the piston face enters.

It took some hard whacks with a mallet to get it unlocked.

GLOOB
November 29, 2012, 05:33 AM
Oh, I've locked up my rifle, too. But I can get way more than 40 rds. I can get close to 300 rds between cleanings without too much grief. I suppose I could also just turn off the gas and shoot 'em one at a time, but that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

I machined a wrench to tease out the gas plug and push out the piston without scratching anything or needing to torque on the flimsy "ears" on my gas plug. The lead comes off like nothing, once you get the parts out.

I'm sure I'll break something, eventually. But I hope to have worn out the barrel and saved enough money on ammo to buy a completely new rifle by then.

It took some hard whacks with a mallet to get it unlocked
When my piston seized, I had nowhere to whack it. No forward assist. Hoppe's freed it up after a few minutes. If it happens again, I suppose I could let the bolt slam forward after the Hoppe's sets in. At the time, I didn't think of it. Luckily, the Hoppe's was all it took.

Hungry1
November 29, 2012, 09:01 PM
Another question:

I got my mold delivered tonight. I cast up about 100 boolits. :)

I lubed them and am applying checks with the Lee .311 sizer.

Do y'all lube again with checks applied?

Thanks

Duckdog
November 29, 2012, 09:03 PM
If you're usin a Lee sizer, yup. You want to tumble lube them again.

Hungry1
November 29, 2012, 09:28 PM
Thanks

Certaindeaf
November 29, 2012, 09:52 PM
Some guy here was recently telling how he seats unsized gaschecked bullets (just placed on there) directly into a sized case. Says he gets good results.

blarby
November 30, 2012, 01:42 AM
From your description of how it works, it sounds like it seats the check pretty good. But when you push the bullet through the sizer, backwards, there's no guarantee it'll stay straight while the check gets squeezed down, now is there?

Yes, there is.

I don't mean to be a pain, but you are mentally dismantling something you've never held or used- and that's difficult to do. Philosophically its an interesting fancy, empirical data suggests completely different results and experience.

Look up how the Saeco sizing dies work. Better yet, get your hands on one. If its one from a friend or fellow loader- be warned, there will be a purchase in your future if you like good cast bullets.

I didn't believe it either. I fought, kicked, whined and moaned that it wasn't possible.

Then I tried it.

It works.

It forced me, kicking and screaming to get the credit card out. I'm one of the cheapest SOB's there is. It's not a gimmick... That sizer was one of the best things I've ever laid cash out for on my loading bench. My primary loading press is a $60ish dollar hunk of red metal. My sizer for cast bullets was $300, and the sizing dies are $38 each diameter- that does not include the $16 per bullet profile top punch. I don't buy things because I like spending money.... I buy things that perform as advertised and give great results. Durability is a big one for me too... I burn through cheap and poorly made tools like most people go through toilet-paper...but I digress...



I know its only a 3c check, its kinda the principle of it, I guess.

I didn't get into handloading because "Ok" was good enough for me.

Once you learn a little bit more about how the bullet base really drives your accuracy- OP- You'll understand why I like good check application.

This problem would be intensified by trying to seat a standard shank bullet and check into an oversized sizer. I.E. a 308-.309 cal check into a .312 or .311 sizer.

Unless you cast flawless bullets, every single time ( I certainly as heck don't ) and seat them completely square and level on the lee sizing ram- you are going to get reject quality check application. You just can't seat a check properly that way. It may work 9 times out of ten, it may even work ten times out of ten sometimes- but its never been 100 for 100 in my experience.

Having the check centered and square on the shank certainly helps.

I've tried to find a few of the castoff checks, but I think they went out on the last recycling run.

As I said, its not a complete deal breaker... but I'm really demanding.

Yep, I bought a pricey tool to save 3c checks- I sure did. I needed something to apply high-quality lube too, so it worked out.

budman46
November 30, 2012, 06:35 PM
hungry1,
a casting tip: aluminum moulds are easily scarred by lead smeared under the sprue cutter. lubing sparingly underneath the cutter with a bit of 2-cycle motor oil before casting and re-applying when lead starts to smear, aluminum mould's lifespans are increased dramatically. i also use a dab on the alignment pins. a bit applied to the pouring holes keeps sprues from sticking. steel moulds benefit too. q-tips work well.

5744 is great; used plenty, but was persuaded by the folks @ castboolits to try 2400 for its lack of positional sensitivity. it's cheaper and i use less to achieve the same velocity to boot.

budman46
November 30, 2012, 07:03 PM
expensive, highly engineered equipment provides results superior to cheaper tools...maybe in theory, but in practice, not always. saeco's, lyman's and rcbs's stuff should produce better results than lee's simpler system, but my experience shows that to be untrue. they all do a great job, but ease of use and cost swayed me to lee's system, which is why i gave my lyman and rcbs away.

newbies may eventually decide to spend $$$, but if there's good stuff that lets them get their feet wet for less, i think they should hear about it.

jcwit
November 30, 2012, 07:55 PM
I'll stick to my Lyman #45 lubers and use a gas check seater when seating checks. Works fine for me and much better than the Lee system, and I like Lee Products in general. I have 2 Lyman #45's, paid $15 for one and $20 for the other. Going to try the aluminum checks and if they work may get a FreeCheck.

Elkins45
November 30, 2012, 08:10 PM
Try this: run your bullets through the Lee push thru sizer BASE FIRST with the gas check first. This seats them the same way that using an "in and out" tool like the Lyman does (unless you use the dedicated gas check seater as an extra step) and the nose doesn't distort enough to matter with relatively hard alloys.

jcwit
November 30, 2012, 08:49 PM
Have no had any issues with the nose of the bullet distorting yet and it's been decades.

BTW I made my own gas check seater, very simple item.

Hungry1
November 30, 2012, 08:51 PM
Well, I just loaded up 35 rounds of 30.06 with the 160 gr bullet from the Lee mold. Sized to .311 and gas checked with the Lee sizer kit, tumble lubed.

I'm using Unique because it's what I have. I loaded 5 round lots starting with 18 gr up to 24 gr.

Using the Lyman 49 and a similar bullet, I should be at roughly 1800- 2400 fps.

We'll see tomorrow.

GLOOB
November 30, 2012, 09:13 PM
Blarby:I don't mean to be a pain, but you are mentally dismantling something you've never held or used- and that's difficult to do.
Which is why I asked you to do it. :) Even if you're not explaining it the way I can understand it, I figure I could eventually get there via point and counterpoint. But you're not really leaving me anything to dissect, here.

I'm wondering, do you press so hard when seating the check that it actually swages the base of the bullet? Small imperfections, at least? I can see how you could get way more pressure on the bullet this way, perhaps enough to iron out some small wrinkles.

Other dude:Try this: run your bullets through the Lee push thru sizer BASE FIRST with the gas check first. This seats them the same way that using an "in and out" tool like the Lyman does
Now, this idea seems to have no benefits and all downside. So, yeah, I WILL try it the next time I size some boolits just to see what happens, but I'm not coming up with any reason this should work better, and a few reasons it should work worse.

Blarby:Unless you cast flawless bullets, every single time ( I certainly as heck don't ) and seat them completely square and level on the lee sizing ram- you are going to get reject quality check application. You just can't seat a check properly that way. It may work 9 times out of ten, it may even work ten times out of ten sometimes- but its never been 100 for 100 in my experience.
I just don't see what straightening the check is supposed to improve. For a base-first sizer, yeah; you put it in, crooked, and it'll crimp on crooked. With a nose-first sizer, the check straightens when you push it through the die. That's my experience. 1400 for 1400. Goes in crooked, comes out straight. So just as I'm starting to buy into your description of the Saeco, here you have me wondering, again. I have to wonder if it's a caliber/bullet/gas check difference. Cuz our experiences and understanding of the Lee sizers are totally different.

Hungry1
December 1, 2012, 03:03 PM
I shot the 30.06 G/C 160gr , .311 boolit over Unique today. Results at 50 yards were good. About a 3", 5 round group with iron sights. Impacts were right on with battle sights of the 1903 too.

I did get some leading which I believe was throwing off my accuracy towards the end.

19 gr of Unique is what I'm going to work with when I move out to 100 yards.

After the barrel was fouled and I knew that my last round of 24 gr was going to be useless, I put up a 1/4" steel plate at 25 yards. I was very surprised to see that my cast lead round punched right through it!

I was having some fun with cast lead from my .357 GP100 also. I was able to consistently hit a large (About 4'x5') oil drum at 200 yards! :D

GLOOB
December 1, 2012, 04:39 PM
Blarby,

Seeing as I only ever used the Lee sizers, I might be full of theoretical BS. But while reading about bullet lubes, I came across a post from a guy that has done a lot more casting and shooting than I probably ever will. A guy that has a lube named after him, over on Cast Boolits. He apparently uses the Lee sizer to size and install the check. Then he puts the sized and checked bullets into base-first Lyman/RCBS lubrisizers, afterward, only to apply lube. He adds a completely extra step in order to use the Lee sizer, and I'm guessing it's not because he likes to waste his time by having to meticulously set the checks straight, first, only to still have "blowouts" and "reject-quality check application."

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?67654-Tumble-Lubing-Made-Easy-amp-Mess-Free/page2

See post #37, #38, and #39. Someone has even apparently posted instruction on how to convert a LymanRCBS to size nose-first.

FTR, I am not trying to win an internet argument. I had forgot about this whole thing, until Hungry1 bumped the thread just after I read this over at Cast Boolits.

Your Saeco might be awesome-on-a-stick, but the Lee method circumvents obvious problems of the base-first method in my reasoning and in this guy's experience. And they only cost $16 and come with a $5.00 bottle of liquid alox. You should avoid trying a Star, at all costs. You might have to trade in your Saeko and spend even more $$$. :)

blarby
December 1, 2012, 07:48 PM
FTR, I am not trying to win an internet argument.

Coulda fooled me.... this keeps going on and on......

Theres also a guy over at castidiots.com that has a bullet lube called, and I quote ( with all respect on the language, but it lends to the facts at hand) :

---deleted-- Yep.

Thats OK over there- and it shows a lot of the mindset. The verbiage and mentality go round and round and round the same schoolyard.

Doesn't make their methods or advice any better than whats found here, simply because they can't spell bullet correctly.

The OP has long since said he isn't going to get the Saeco- and thats fine.

I've used and use both.

I know which one is better ( for me ) for what things.

Far as I'm concerned, end of story. You wanna keep kickin the horse- be my guest. I got goose to get..... and sleep, too.

Walkalong
December 1, 2012, 09:27 PM
The OP was just trying to get some good answers and y'all couldn't stop arguing. If one of you thinks it wasn't your fault, just remember, it takes two to tango.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sizing Cast Bullets" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!