Cast bullet grooves

[AJC1]

Overall length is entirely dependent upon the specific cast bullet in use. SAAMI says OAL for my 41 mag should be 1.59", the Lyman 410459 OAL is 1.70ish.

I'll disagree, and say oal is dependent on action length. You can't go longer than your action will allow, but you can definitely go longer than Sammi spec.

 

[Stefan A]

but I've never crimped into a lube grove as you have done.

I did not do that. It's between the 2 grooves.

 

[AJC1]

I did not do that. It's between the 2 grooves.

Driving band is gtg. Apologies for misinterpreting

 

[Charlie98]

I did not do that. It's between the 2 grooves.

I thought you did, too. My bad.

As I mentioned before, and regardless of where you crimped it, if it's working... it's a solution.

You also mentioned...

So, I'm starting to get the idea that people generally crimp to the groove, regardless of what the OAL says in the manual? I was under the impression that OAL was as critical as anything else when assembling a cartridge.

OAL is critical... it's more critical in some handloads (think 9mm with TiteGroup,) and less in others (think mid-range cast SWC over Unique.) Deep seating the bullet in that 9mm load might get you into trouble, deep seating that cast SWC probably not so much.

What does the manual say? The manual's OAL specification is with that exact bullet they are using in their testing, sometimes that specification will work with other, similar bullets, sometimes not; again, it circles back to what you are loading. A case full of Unique is one thing, a case full of W296 is entirely another. People generally 'crimp to the groove,' to use your phrase, because that's what the crimp groove is for. It's the handloader's responsibility, if they are using a different bullet than the one specified in the data, to evaluate how much, if any, the different bullet will matter to the OAL specification, but more importantly, how it affects case fill by reducing (or increasing) the air space in the case over the charge of powder.

 

[__steve__]

I have the exact same HyTek used there (same appearance) from MB on 400 grain .500’s recently purchased from MB. Have had incredible experience with MB for this cartridge, long range accuracy makes me look like I’m good at shooting. Unfortunately I am having a difficult time loading these coated ones as they keep sandblasting my face when I shoot them.

 

[Stefan A]

What does the manual say?

I am using acc 5 and Lyman says 1.45 for all powders. Lee says 1.481 for my powder. If I use Lyman’s OAL, it crimps in the groove. If I use Lee, you can see what happens in the pic. Lyman’s specifies a particular 158g cast bullet and I have no idea if that’s what I have. Lee only says cast with no particulars about the bullet.

 

[AJC1]

I am using acc 5 and Lyman says 1.45 for all powders. Lee says 1.481 for my powder. If I use Lyman’s OAL, it crimps in the groove. If I use Lee, you can see what happens in the pic. Lyman’s specifies a particular 158g cast bullet and I have no idea if that’s what I have. Lee only says cast with no particulars about the bullet.

Bullet shape matters a lot here. An swc will be much longer for the same weight. In what your trying to accomplish a longer bullet would be better. They also make bullets with no lube groves that might be your style. If I was in your position I would try a few sample packs until you find the right bullet for your need.

 

[Charlie98]

I am using acc 5 and Lyman says 1.45 for all powders. Lee says 1.481 for my powder. If I use Lyman’s OAL, it crimps in the groove. If I use Lee, you can see what happens in the pic. Lyman’s specifies a particular 158g cast bullet and I have no idea if that’s what I have. Lee only says cast with no particulars about the bullet.

Actually, I meant that as a rhetorical question, not a direct one to you... But... you bring up a good point...

The Lee OAL is based on the bullet they were testing... which was not specified. That's one of the reasons I really don't like the Lee book, and I rarely use it. For that matter Lyman's data is based on the bullet they were testing, but they usually have a picture of the bullet, so you can compare bullet profiles, and depending on the edition, they list bullets that are compatible with that data, or if it's a cast bullet... it's prolly one of theirs.

In reality, both Lee and Lyman are not setting the OAL based on the powder, per se, but the bullet they are using. Most non-plated bullets have a crimp groove or cannelure, that is the place 99.9% of the handloaders will seat to, and very likely where the testers seated to for their data testing. That 1.481" in the Lee manual is what they came up with using whatever bullet they happened to have, very likely seating to the crimp groove.

I mentioned before that the solution you found seems to work well enough, what I eluded to in my following comment... about not being afraid to look for another bullet... is because what you have is not the ideal solution. As was mentioned, some levers don't like Special-length rounds, some have to be tuned, some just don't like them, period. I would probably try to find a proper solution... that is, a bullet long enough in a .38SPC case to function properly, or... probably the better solution... using .357MAG brass. I understand that may not be the answer you want to hear.

 

[P Flados]

Keeping OAL "exactly at the load data value" and using the exact bullet listed will give you the same seating depth as the published load. Seating depth can be very important for some rounds that have minimal free space (9mm for example), but is much less critical for a 38 special. With 38 Special being fired in a 357 mag lever gun, you will want a crimp that prevents setback. Otherwise any OAL that is for good feeding is probably Ok.

For a 357 Mag load with a case full of H110, seating depth becomes important again.

 

[Varminterror]

So, I'm starting to get the idea that people generally crimp to the groove, regardless of what the OAL says in the manual? I was under the impression that OAL was as critical as anything else when assembling a cartridge.

The COAL in the manual for THAT bullet should correspond to crimping in the crimp groove. Naturally, applying the COAL for the wrong bullet isn’t apt.

COAL really isn’t terribly critical - there are some dependencies, such as feeding reliability, mag length, avoiding leade jam, or crimping in the groove, but overall, book COAL’s or SAAMI COAL’s aren’t gospel.

 

[mdi]

So, I'm starting to get the idea that people generally crimp to the groove, regardless of what the OAL says in the manual? I was under the impression that OAL was as critical as anything else when assembling a cartridge.

Yep, for revolver handloads. When I started reloading (waaay pre web) I figgered the bullet deigner knew where to locate the crimp groove and seated all my revolver bullets to the crimp groove and disregarded OAL. For rifle and semi-auto hanfguns I start out with the bullet manufacturer's recommended OAL specs....

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Yep, for revolver handloads. When I started reloading (waaay pre web) I figgered the bullet deigner knew where to locate the crimp groove and seated all my revolver bullets to the crimp groove and disregarded OAL. For rifle and semi-auto hanfguns I start out with the bullet manufacturer's recommended OAL specs....

And that right there is where a chronograph is helpful (notice I didn’t say mandatory or required, just helpful). If you start with the lowest recommended loads, from a known good source of information, and get close to the velocity that source says to expect, then you can work up to an acceptable speed and accuracy for your goal. If you get way off numbers, after compensating for idiosyncrasies of your guns, then you need to recalibrate. It’s useful to know actual velocity when changing up components and when interpolating data.

 

[Charlie98]

And that right there is where a chronograph is helpful (notice I didn’t say mandatory or required, just helpful). If you start with the lowest recommended loads, from a known good source of information, and get close to the velocity that source says to expect, then you can work up to an acceptable speed and accuracy for your goal. If you get way off numbers, after compensating for idiosyncrasies of your guns, then you need to recalibrate. It’s useful to know actual velocity when changing up components and when interpolating data.

A lot of people overemphasize the chronograph... and particularly the ones searching for FPS at the expense of anything else. I consider it a puzzle piece... a very big and important piece... for load development, and, for that matter, troubleshooting firearm issues (in some cases.) It is not the end all, I reloaded for some years until I spent $100 hard earned (1990 dollars...) and got my chrony, and my handloads did what I expected them to do, but it can be a big help in validating a handload.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

A lot of people overemphasize the chronograph... and particularly the ones searching for FPS at the expense of anything else. I consider it a puzzle piece... a very big and important piece... for load development, and, for that matter, troubleshooting firearm issues (in some cases.) It is not the end all, I reloaded for some years until I spent $100 hard earned (1990 dollars...) and got my chrony, and my handloads did what I expected them to do, but it can be a big help in validating a handload.

Agreed. I really liked the older Lyman/Ideal way of testing with OTC firearms vs. universal receivers and test barrels. I got pretty good at guesstimating where my 4-3/4” RBH was going to be velocity and accuracy wise versus the 5” S&W 27 Lyman/Ideal was testing. Calculating velocity from bullet drop using dead-weight-drop physics and the gravitational constant, g (9.8m/s^2), is pretty good but what kinda surprised me when I finally got a Chrony F1 (ca. 1996) was just how close both my calculations and the Lyman 45th numbers were to my actual velocities. It helps a lot when using a strange bullet with no published data, like the Federal Guard Dog 109gr. 9mm and the Remington 1st Gen. BJHP 125gr, Golden Saber commercial bullets. If I have tested tables of data and a chronograph I can get to a working load a lot faster than with pen, paper and a calculator.