Disturbing problem: Cartridge with Lyman cast bullet handloaded to COAL spec will NOT chamber in my rifle

[JimGnitecki]

Because your rifle is a single shot, crimp basically doesn't matter. Load a start charge, seat the bullet till it fits and shoot it. Your concerns of jam are unfounded in my opinion and slightly into the lands helps accuracy and prevents bullet deformation. I'm not talking hard jam here...

Remember that we do not know how much deeper I will need to go in seating the bullet into the case, in order to chamber the cartridges. Because the ogive is SO long, it could be just a few thousandths, or could be a LOT of thosuandths! I will try seating a dummy round iteratively deeper until it chambers and see how much shorter that makes the COAL. Shortening the COAL will of course raise the peak pressures. So do you think that it would be safe to raise those peak pressures, given that the load range I am testing within is supposedly (per the load tables used) 14,000 psi to 17,000 psi maximum?

Jim G

 

[AJC1]

I don't think at a Trapdoor starting load you'll have any issues. That case is huge. And you said a 1/16 which is way more than thousandths.

 

[AJC1]

If you have any real concerns run a grt model and watch the pressure change with oal.

 

[Rule3]

Is your brass trimmed correctly.?
I do not load for this rifle but had similar experience with CZ 9mm. Due to their throats or chamber the more rounded profile bullets had to be seated much shorter.
Sometime just a hair makes a big difference, So if your brass is a tad shorter you can seat it up to that top groove and see if that works,
Lyman used a universal receiver, not your rifle.

Get one of these

LEE .45/70 GOVT FACTORY CRIMP DIE

Lee .45/70 GOVT Factory Crimp Die The Lee Factory Crimp Die crimps the bullet firmly in place. Tests demonstrate that even bullets which have no crimp groove will shoot more accurately. A firm crimp improves accuracy because pressure must build to a higher level before the bullet begins to move...

www.titanreloading.com

 

[Jim Watson]

Do we know the diameter of the parallel nose as coated yet? Did I miss it somewhere above?
While we are at it, what is the diameter before coating?
Will a (dummy) cartridge with a bare lead bullet chamber?

 

[JimGnitecki]

If you have any real concerns run a grt model and watch the pressure change with oal.

I don't any longer have access to GRT. There's no Apple version.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Is your brass trimmed correctly.?
I do not load for this rifle but had similar experience with CZ 9mm. Due to their throats or chamber the more rounded profile bullets had to be seated much shorter.
Sometime just a hair makes a big difference, So if your brass is a tad shorter you can seat it up to that top groove and see if that works,
Lyman used a universal receiver, not your rifle.

Get one of these

LEE .45/70 GOVT FACTORY CRIMP DIE

Lee .45/70 GOVT Factory Crimp Die The Lee Factory Crimp Die crimps the bullet firmly in place. Tests demonstrate that even bullets which have no crimp groove will shoot more accurately. A firm crimp improves accuracy because pressure must build to a higher level before the bullet begins to move...

www.titanreloading.com

'Good thought of course. But my cases were all trimmed recently to an acceptable dimension well down within the SAAMI acceptable range. And it appears that it is not the case that ios preventing full chambering, but rather the bullet ogive. And the actual OD of the finished cartridges shows that the case moth is NOT being stretched to accommodate the bullet shank. The actual case OD at the moth is .478", which with the .010" thick case walls means that with the actual .4595" OD of the sized bullets, I have a pretty much ideal .0015" slight interference fit between the cases and the bullets, same as I had with the prior bullet shape, which chambered fine (in fact, a little loosely).

Jim G

 

[Larry in wyoming]

Coat your bullet with a thin coat of lipstick and chamber it and then see where the contact is being made. Post a picture.

 

[JimGnitecki]

I found exactly what is happening:

I iteratively reduced the COAL of a cartridge that I seated an UNcoated bullet into, until it would properly chamber. It chambered properly, still snugly but without undue force and still removable via ejector, when I got down to a COAL = 2.799". That is .036" below the recommended COAL of 2.835". Not too bad a COAL reduction.

BUT, the ogive has at that point a very prominent circular "ditch" in it where it is contacting metal in the rifle, probably the throat?

And, when I try the same iterative reduction with the powder coated bullet, I canNOT get it to chamber properly. In fact, it gets WORSE, presumably because the ogive is being "fattened" even more by being pushed into metal. I stopped trying at COAL = 2.784", by which time the cartridge was a good half inch from being chambered!

Here's a photo of both cartridges:



You can clearly see:

1. The case mouth is now well above the top lube groove and on the topmost driving band (which is only about 1/16" tall)

2. Both cartridges have significantly damaged ogives that show a prominent ring ditch.

The cartridge with the UNcoated bullet in the photo is at that 2.799" COAL I mentioned. The cartridge with the powder coated bullet is at 2.784" COAL.

By the way, the damage to both bullet shanks at the crimp is due to the stronger crimping i first tried, BEFORE trying to reduce the COAL, now acting as a "scraper" as I pushed the bullets deeper into the cases.

I have also Googled this Lyman mold / bullet. If you look hard enough for postings on this specific mold, you will see MANY people have run into this exact same problem, and have chnaed to Saeco or Accurate or other brands of molds that offer less bulbuous ogives for this specific reason,

It also turns out that this Lyman mold does NOT accurately copy the original U.S. military design. It was fattened. When too many people evidently ran into this problem, Lyman "skinnyed' it a bit, but it is still more bulbuous than the original U.S. Military bullet.

Conclusion: I likely have to give up on trying to use this brand new costly mold (over $162 CDN landed in Canada, by buying the last one actually available in North America at the time I bought it). I need an bullet that has a "slimmer" ogive.

I suppose this means that my chamber's throat is desirably snug, so that's a consolation. I just need to find a better shaped bulelt that can UTILIZE that snugness.

And this finding significantly undermines my confidence in both Lyman and Mike Venturino. My detailed Google investigation of forum contents shows that Lyman clearly has created some dimensional issues with this mold. And Mike Venturino, who wrote almost all of the text content in the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, and who recommended this mold SO highly, clearly had not done his homework before submitting the text for publishing.

Jim G

 

[Rule3]

'Good thought of course. But my cases were all trimmed recently to an acceptable dimension well down within the SAAMI acceptable range. And it appears that it is not the case that ios preventing full chambering, but rather the bullet ogive. And the actual OD of the finished cartridges shows that the case moth is NOT being stretched to accommodate the bullet shank. The actual case OD at the moth is .478", which with the .010" thick case walls means that with the actual .4595" OD of the sized bullets, I have a pretty much ideal .0015" slight interference fit between the cases and the bullets, same as I had with the prior bullet shape, which chambered fine (in fact, a little loosely).

Jim G

I realize it's not the case preventing cambering I only mention trimming to allow you to seat the bullet a fraction more,
These are bullets you cast? Are they sized correctly. As I mentioned with my CZ handguns a round profile 124 gr would not chamber as a pointed one would. same thing only smaller.

 

[Jim Watson]

Pedersoli isn't helping, either.
Their spec is a .450" bore, .457" groove but individual barrels are all over the place, I have found .452-.458, .450-.458, .450-.455 (!), .450-.454 (!!)

Sorry for your loss on the mould. It would probably work fine on an original Trapdoor that is larger than modern barrels.

 

[JimGnitecki]

I realize it's not the case preventing cambering I only mention trimming to allow you to seat the bullet a fraction more,
These are bullets you cast? Are they sized correctly. As I mentioned with my CZ handguns a round profile 124 gr would not chamber as a pointed one would. same thing only smaller.

Yes, I cast these bullets. Yes, the bullets were sized in a Lee push-through .460" sizer to an actual .4595" diameter. See my definitive info above at posting number 34 as to what is happening and why.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Pedersoli isn't helping, either.
Their spec is a .450" bore, .457" groove but individual barrels are all over the place, I have found .452-.458, .450-.458, .450-.455 (!), .450-.454 (!!)

Sorry for your loss on the mould. It would probably work fine on an original Trapdoor that is larger than modern barrels.

My Pedersoli was slugged by my gunsmith, and apparently found to be .4563" groove diameter, so apparently pretty much right on the Pedersoli spec of .457". The .4595" sized diameter that my Lee .460" sizer ACTUALLY produces (despite its .460" claim) is pretty ideal. It gives me .4563 - .4595 = .0032" of interference fit, which in a Pedersoli buffalo rifle is, I'm told, pretty much perfect. The 3-shot groups as good as 0.62" that the rifle produced at 100 yards verifies that. BUT, the bullet has to have a shape that is compatible with the throat. This bullet is evidently NOT the right bullet.

I agree that the mold would likely work just fine on an original Trapdoor. But not many shooters want to use an original Trapdoor for precision long range shots!

Jim G

 

[EricBu]

<shrug>, seat an uncoated bullet in an unprimed sized case......cover it with a black sharpee......and close the breech on it. Rod it out (likely if it's engaged), see where it's hitting. Seat the bullet deeper and reduce charge as needed. Or get another mold.

 

[JimGnitecki]

I have now tried 2 different bullet molds/designs, and neither has worked.

The Lee aluminum 485g mold that produced a sharper point bullet gave GREAT results at 100 yards, but ran into trouble at longer ranges, presumably because it got into the transonic zone at about 125 yards and failed to group at all beyond that range.

This Lyman mold has a fat ogive shape that won't chamber in my rifle.

I am really wondering what to try next. I am also not happy about having to spend the money for another mold which might or might not work for my rifle, and wait for shipping to me in Canada (No Canadian mold makers) which typically now takes 3 weeks or more due to Canada Customs delays.\

Any suggestions?

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

<shrug>, seat an uncoated bullet in an unprimed sized case......cover it with a black sharpee......and close the breech on it. Rod it out (likely if it's engaged), see where it's hitting. Seat the bullet deeper and reduce charge as needed. Or get another mold.

See posting 34 above.

Jim G

 

[NMexJim]

I apologize in advance for not being a 45-70 expert. When I look at the SAAMI specs, I see that the COAL is listed at 2.49-2.50. That's a ways from 2.835. The chamber drawing looks even worse with a cartridge base to bore length of 2.1789. That'd be where you'd hit the .458 bullet diameter. I'd have to have these in hand with a bullet comparator to try and figure out the difference, but I can't see how it'd be possible for this bullet to chamber. My next thought was for a .45-90 chamber but I can't find a reliable drawing for that chamber.

If it were me, I'd be calling Lyman toot-sweet, and I'd be on Cast Boolits and https://castbulletassoc.org/.

 

[JimGnitecki]

I apologize in advance for not being a 45-70 expert. When I look at the SAAMI specs, I see that the COAL is listed at 2.49-2.50. That's a ways from 2.835. The chamber drawing looks even worse with a cartridge base to bore length of 2.1789. That'd be where you'd hit the .458 bullet diameter. I'd have to have these in hand with a bullet comparator to try and figure out the difference, but I can't see how it'd be possible for this bullet to chamber. My next thought was for a .45-90 chamber but I can't find a reliable drawing for that chamber.

If it were me, I'd be calling Lyman toot-sweet, and I'd be on Cast Boolits and https://castbulletassoc.org/.




View attachment 1169712

I've explored those forums, and others too. The chamber dimensions for .45-70 do not prohibit using bullets that go beyond 2.550", PROVIDED that the bullet's ogive is shaped to be "slim" enough to not run into any metal before the barrel rifling. That is why even the U.S. Military, and Sharps Rifle Manufacturing, both routinely specified using bullets that made COALS well beyond 2.550". That Lee slimmer bullet that chambered and fired just fine in my rifle was loaded to a LARGER coal than the Lyman-recommended 2.835"!

It's all in the (a) diameter and (b) the shape of the bulelt ogive. The maximum diameter of the bullet OGIVE need not match the diameter of the bullet SHANK. It CAN be smaller, and often needs to be. Heck, on a .38 target semi-wadcutter bullet, it IS notably smaller diameter.

It turns out that the BPCR forums all moan about this Lyman mold as producing a problematic ogive shape, and recommend looking elsewhere than Lyman (despite what Venturino says in his text that Lyman paid him for). Sure, it might work fine in a Trapdoor built to the loose original specs, but it apparently rarely works in a modern rifle with tighter specs, especially a rifle intended for long range use.

Note that on some bullets produced by molds used in BPCR, even the diameter of the SHANK driving bands changes from base of the bullet to the start of the ogive!

It seems that bullet designers who design bullets for long range use in Sharps or Rolling Block replica rifles focus on providing shanks that will properly drive the bullet accurately through the rifling, and focus separately on designing ogives and meplats that SIMULTANEOUSLY must:
- maximize ballistic coefficient
- Maximize accuracy
- Ideally prevent, but at least minimize, loss of stability and accuracy when going through the transonic speed zone is unavoidable or impractical (It IS impractical when shooting to 600 or 1000 yards without having to launch the bullet at 2000 fps or more, which produces painful recoil when shooting the heavy bullets needed to go 600 to 1000 yards reliably!)
- NOT run into any rifle metal before being fully chambered.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

As for calling Lyman, I sort of lost my respect for their opinions when:

1. I read about how bullets produced by this Lyman mold actually perform

2. I saw that my Lyman furnace, which Lyman calls a "25 lb capacity" furnace, actually is pretty much almost FULL to the rim at 23.6 lb when using any alloy that is not pure lead (even my rather soft alloy which is heavier than most alloys), and that leaves almost no room for proper fluxing and agitating and skimming.

Jim G

 

[AJC1]

The best quality recommendation at this point is to see if the guys at your range will let you have or buy a few bullets for testing. In that light if you find a winner then the cost becomes less of a barrier because your chasing something that you know works in a mould. Buying 10 molds to find one that works is a non-starter in my book.

 

[EricBu]

See posting 34 above.

Jim G

I did, comment was made after reading that...can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Just using the ol' Mark 1 eyeball, just simply looks like it's not going to chamber in a 45-70 at the OAL you want. I mean, we can bust out comparators, drill it down, figure out the why.....but you're still going to be in the same place is my suspicion, and hence my comment. You're either going to have to seat deeper or switch molds. You could size it down more, get it to fit.......but that would concern me personally because maybe it fits now, but just from memory that seems like a bit more OAL than 45-70 was meant to have, so I'd guess you'd be way up in the lands if you kept sizing it down until it fit. Just out of curiousity, have you dropped it in a case gauge? Does it drop clean? How far past the case gauge is it extending if it does drop in clean? Doesn't seem to be to much mystery to me. Sometimes things don't work how we want them to work, my gut tells me that's just not a doable OAL, with that design, and that ogive in 45-70.

 

[NMexJim]

I've explored those forums, and others too. The chamber dimensions for .45-70 do not prohibit using bullets that go beyond 2.550", PROVIDED that the bullet's ogive is shaped to be "slim" enough to not run into any metal before the barrel rifling. That is why even the U.S. Military, and Sharps Rifle Manufacturing, both routinely specified using bullets that made COALS well beyond 2.550". That Lee slimmer bullet that chambered and fired just fine in my rifle was loaded to a LARGER coal than the Lyman-recommended 2.835"!

It's all in the (a) diameter and (b) the shape of the bulelt ogive. The maximum diameter of the bullet OGIVE need not match the diameter of the bullet SHANK. It CAN be smaller, and often needs to be. Heck, on a .38 target semi-wadcutter bullet, it IS notably smaller diameter.

It turns out that the BPCR forums all moan about this Lyman mold as producing a problematic ogive shape, and recommend looking elsewhere than Lyman (despite what Venturino says in his text that Lyman paid him for). Sure, it might work fine in a Trapdoor built to the loose original specs, but it apparently rarely works in a modern rifle with tighter specs, especially a rifle intended for long range use.

Note that on some bullets produced by molds used in BPCR, even the diameter of the SHANK driving bands changes from base of the bullet to the start of the ogive!

It seems that bullet designers who design bullets for long range use in Sharps or Rolling Block replica rifles focus on providing shanks that will properly drive the bullet accurately through the rifling, and focus separately on designing ogives and meplats that SIMULTANEOUSLY must:
- maximize ballistic coefficient
- Maximize accuracy
- Ideally prevent, but at least minimize, loss of stability and accuracy when going through the transonic speed zone is unavoidable or impractical (It IS impractical when shooting to 600 or 1000 yards without having to launch the bullet at 2000 fps or more, which produces painful recoil when shooting the heavy bullets needed to go 600 to 1000 yards reliably!)
- NOT run into any rifle metal before being fully chambered.

Jim G

Mike V. chaps my rear anyway!

 

[JimGnitecki]

The best quality recommendation at this point is to see if the guys at your range will let you have or buy a few bullets for testing. In that light if you find a winner then the cost becomes less of a barrier because your chasing something that you know works in a mould. Buying 10 molds to find one that works is a non-starter in my book.

Excellent idea. There is one other shooter at our rnage that I know reasonably well, and he gave me some 500g samples before to try. They worked GREAT at 100 yards, but since he gave me only a dozen, I only ladder tested them at 100 yards. I'll ask if he is willing to sell me maybe 50 or 100 of them so that I can ideally ladder test them at 150 and 300 yards.

300 is the limit of where I can SEE the bullet holes with the combination of my spotting scope and my eyes, without having to disrupt the shooting by taking the car downrange to 600 yards (The maximum range our club has)! I had figured out previously that walking down to 600 yards and back takes me about 12 minutes per trip. So a ladder test invoilving just 3 of 3-shot groups per handload, with just 5 handloads tried, would require 15 downrane trips which would take 15 x 12 = 180 minutes = 3 hours of just WALKING, let alone shooting! And that ignores the time and shots required just to sight in before the ladder testing! The time required blows up pretty quickly . . .

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

I did, comment was made after reading that...can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Just using the ol' Mark 1 eyeball, just simply looks like it's not going to chamber in a 45-70 at the OAL you want. I mean, we can bust out comparators, drill it down, figure out the why.....but you're still going to be in the same place is my suspicion, and hence my comment. You're either going to have to seat deeper or switch molds. You could size it down more, get it to fit.......but that would concern me personally because maybe it fits now, but just from memory that seems like a bit more OAL than 45-70 was meant to have, so I'd guess you'd be way up in the lands if you kept sizing it down until it fit. Just out of curiousity, have you dropped it in a case gauge? Does it drop clean? How far past the case gauge is it extending if it does drop in clean? Doesn't seem to be to much mystery to me. Sometimes things don't work how we want them to work, my gut tells me that's just not a doable OAL, with that design, and that ogive in 45-70.

The problem is completely, and ONLY, the ogive shape. This length of bullet is necessary to fit 500g into a bullet that can only be about .459" diameter. ALL single shot 45-70 rifles (but not all lever action rifles), were designed with that in mind and CAN handle that length. Even the original U.S. Military Trapdoors and Sharps buffalo rifles could handle them. In fact, The Military REQUIRED them as the standard bullet. The intelligent bullet designers simply make sure that the ogive shape is suitable to not hit any rifle metal when chambering.

Jim G

 

[MEHavey]

We have found the problem: You have PC'd a bore rider.
Ain't gonna work not no way/no how.
All Stop.

Now . . . .

Take that 457125, size it bare, and then ALOX it in accordance with the following:

Sizing lube when using Alox

I am still very new to casting bullets and understand the processes involved but there are still some areas that are a little vague. I'm going to be casting some .452 230 grain bullets and have a Lee .452 resizing die. Before I get into any more exotic coatings like powder coating, I plan on...

castboolits.gunloads.com

It will load/chamber/shoot just fine

~~~~~~~~ Break Break ~~~~~~~~
UPDATE: See Post #53.
Something's not kosher here.

.