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

JimGnitecki said:
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
Click to expand...
So then, your back to changing to another mold....I mean...you can keep bringing up "should" and "most" and whatever......but my comment still stands, you got two choices. Sorry it's not working out the way you want it too, that's how life sometimes works.
 
MEHavey said:
We have found gthe 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
Click to expand...

The whack mark on the naked bullet in post #34 makes seem not that simple.

I still haven't seen a measurement for the bullet nose.


Trivia:
The original Sharps load was .45-75-420 paper patch. No doubt there was a lot of Army Surplus .45-70-405 shot in Sharps rifles. Sharps went out of business about the time the Army adopted .45-70-500 but I am sure there was some use.
Which means nothing to modern Pedersoli.
 
The whack mark on the naked bullet
Click to expand...
OUCH! You are correct. :eek:!
Capture.jpg


Are "we" sure of the barrel caliber?
...or that there's not a piece of separated case up at chamber's end/jammed in the bore?
 
Last edited:
MEHavey said:
We have found gthe 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
Click to expand...

I don't see how it can work, even using Alox versus powder. When I tried chambering the UNcoated bullet, it started to get that ringed ditch near the top of the bullet, long before it actually chambered. That damage to the ogive was at about 0.320" from the very tip of the bullet!! i.e., it was already running into rifle metal just .320" back from the tip! And that was with the bullet seated .036" shorter than the recommended COAL in the Lyman load table for it!

Even if I shorten the COAL very aggressively enough to enable it to chamber, which may or may not be safe, the bullet ogive will inevitably be damaged in the same way as soon as the bullet starts to move forward, no?

That bullet may work just fine in a rifle with looser tolerances (like a rifle built to original Trapdoor specs), but not in my Pedersoli.

Jim G
 
MEHavey said:
OUCH! You are correct. :eek:!
Capture.jpg


Are "we" sure of the barrel caliber?
...or that there's not a piece of separated case up at chamber's end ?
Click to expand...
Yes, we are sure of the caliber. And, it fired the 485g Lee molded 45-70 bullet just fine. No issues of bulelt deformation while chambering with that bullet. And no, the chamber and barrel are absolutely clean, and none of my previously fired cases has lost any metal (I clean my cases right after each shooting session).

I would remind all readers here that I have now done detailed research into this bullet mold (which in hindsight I should have done BEFORE buying the darn thing, but I trusted Mike Venurino's text in the Lyman book). The comments I found at the best BPCR sights (including the forums frequented by the most successful competition shooters and Shiloh rifle shooters) has uncovered MANY disparaging remarks about this mold, all prompted by Lyman's apparent inability to even keep the mold dimensions consistent as their cherries wear, and their use of a too bulbuous shape to begin with (more bulbuous than the original 500g bullet shape specified by the army in the 1870s).

Jim G
 
Then there's something stuck in the bore with that small an interference ring on the bullet nose

The bare 457125 nose should be .450 in diamter... same as 45-70 bore.
If the nose diameter does measure 0.450" will it mostly fit/slide into the muzzle?
 
What is the measured diameter of the whack mark/interference ring?
What is the measured diameter of the bullet nose, bare and coated?

A case separation into the chamber throat? Ugh.
 
Just to dispel any thoughts of there being any problem with the rifle itself: I still have loaded rounds left that were loaded with the prior Lee bullet. I just successfully chambered two of those rounds. They have always been, and still are, a LOOSE fit in the chamber. In fact, they DROP fully into the chamber!

And by the way, those cartridges used the Lee bullets POWDER COATED, which added thickness to the ogive! Examining the cartridges loaded with the Lee powder coated bullet, after removing them unfired, I see absolutely NO markings on the ogive, even after letting them DROP into the chamber.

Yeah, there IS something drastically wrong - with this Lyman bullet shape.

Jim G
 
Just as another data point, I dug up an old 45-70 book I had laying around, and pulled up a page from my Lyman 50th, both agree and have the same data points. Lyman claims that they've been using that same 457125 mold for over a hundred years. Both clearly reference that bullet as duplicating the the Army 500 grain bullet, so as you say, it **should** work. Since the Sharps was already dead when the Army started using that one, I can only go back to thinking that either the sharps doesn't have the same chamber dimensions as the Trapdoor (I don't know, I'm a Trapdoor guy, and lever guy, never owned a sharps), you have an obstruction in your sharps replica (piece of broken case or something), or you have a crap mold. Seeing your pic above with where that ring is hitting the bullet.....something is horribly horribly wrong, in my mind I was thinking it was hitting way differently. That looks like the ring you'd get slamming a 45-90 into a 45-70. I withdraw my previous 2 choices, and change to....just stop and start all over, and go back through everything step by step and measure everythign, brass, chamber, get a bore scope....you've got something going on way more than switching molds. I mean, you've got what looks like a .40 caliber ring on a .45 caliber bullet, there is something not right.
 
EricBu said:
what looks like a .40 caliber ring on a .45 caliber bullet,
Click to expand...
Shirley "looks" like it....
< eeek >
:feet:



...but insuring the bare 457125's as-cast/bare nose is 0.450" ...
...and that nose will drop into the muzzle... will be a major 'tell'
 
Honestly, after seeing that last picture.....I would never never ever shoot that gun again until scoping the bore. Even a cheap phone scope on Amazon will do for this, and that is only 20 or 30 bucks. Seems like cheap insurance to save a gun, and possibly a face. That ring on the bullet is down right scary.
 
What's more interesting is there do not appear to be any rifling marks on that "ring"
I defer to the gentle readers what portends....
:thumbdown:



postscript: Measure the nose diameter of the bare 457125, and you may find you have an effective muzzle gauge right there.
 
Jim Watson said:
What is the measured diameter of the whack mark/interference ring?
What is the measured diameter of the bullet nose, bare and coated?

A case separation into the chamber throat? Ugh.
Click to expand...
It is very hard to measure the diameter at the interference ring, but my Mitutoyo digital caliper seems to consistently produce ab out .385" diameter at the base-end of the ring.

The following comparison of uncoated bullets and powder coated bullets, after sizing in the Lee sizer (which sizes only the bullet shank of course) is interesting for its unexpected outcome.

For it, I randomly slected 3 uncoated bullets and 3 coated bullets. I don't know how truly accurate the following measurments can be, since they depend on very accurately grasping the bullet ogive in the measuring device exactly barely above the topmost driving band. I did the 2 sets of 3 uncoated and 3 coated bullets twice, and got slightly different measurments and averages each time!

But, for what they are worth, the measured diameter of the base of the OGIVE, just above the topmost driving band, when measured with my Mitutoyo digital micrometer (for at least better accuracy than with the digital micrometer) appears to be:
Bare sized bullet = .447" (average of 3 bullets)
Powder coated and sized bullet = .449" (average of 3 bullets)
This implies roughly a .001" powder thickness after curing (.449 minus .447 divided by 2 since it is a diameter we are measuring)

So the powder coating does of course increase the ogive diameter, but very slightly.

This would merely mean that the powder coated bullet will contact the rifle metal obstruction (wherevever it is) sooner, and therefor if we could somehow measure very accurately from the top of the top driving band to the bottom of the interference ring (we cannot), we would find that the measurement would be slightly higher for the powder coated bullet. But that difference is NOT responsible for the problem encountered here. NEITHER of the bullets, coated or uncoated, will chamber. The DIFFERENCE in exactly what depth they each encounter rifle metal resistance is ridiculosuly immnaterial. The interference here is not that subtle. It is mammoth

Again, it's the ogive shape that is causing this, and the severity of MY specific situation MIGHT be because I happened to get a mold that was cut by a new or almost new cherry. A new cherry would cut a larger mold cavity than a worn one, right?

Jim G
 
Jim Watson and ME Havey: I am not sure what you want me to measure, and how I cna accurately do it.

The uncoated and coated bullets both will have the same shank diameter, as they both go through the Lee .460" sizer as their last processing step before being loaded into cartridges. The ACTUAL shank diametr produced by my specific Lee sizer insert is .4595".

I have tried (last post) to measure the OGIVE diameter. The ONLY place I can measure that with ANY accuracy, since it is a curved surface, is RIGHT above the topmost driving band, and as I pointed out, even doing that it is hard to get consistent results.

I did my best to measure the diameter at the interference ring.

I think looking at the photo early in this entire thread, that shows the prior Lee bullet and the new Lyman bullet side by side shows rather vividly what the issue is: The "skinnier" Lee ogive can fit into the throat of my rifle without encountering interference with rifle metal, whereas the "fatter" shape of the Lyman bullet puts too much bullet diameter too far forward to slide into my specific rifle without hitting rifle metal.

The interferance cannot be explained by a mere .001" thick powder coating. Even the BARE bullet needs to have the COAL shortened by at least .036" to be able to chamber completely, and even then it is damaged.

I just now also tested and verified that a fired and resized case drops easily into the chamber.

NO alloy composition can cause a bullet to come out of the mold OVERsize.

And metal bullets, as they cool, will, if anything, shrink, not get larger.

What else other than the ogive shape of the Lyman bullet be the problem?

Jim G
 
JimGnitecki said:
Bare sized bullet = .447" (average of 3 bullets)
Powder coated and sized bullet = .449" (average of 3 bullets).
Click to expand...

JimGnitecki said:
caliper seems to consistently produce ab out .385" diameter at the base-end of the ring.
Click to expand...


Nominal Pedersoli bore diameter is .450”, the throat somewhat larger.
The bare Lyman should chamber freely, the coated might take a push.
Where can a .385” hard stop come from?

Your Lee spitzers taper off so fast as to miss that obstruction. And I think it is an obstruction and would not fire the gun.
 
When I first looked at this thread, I thought that top ring was an artifact from your seating plug, and the stop was that faint line along the ogive...but once it seemed that the top line was the hard stop you're talking about....that absolutely has to be an obstruction if that is in fact where the bullet is stopping when you attempt to chamber it. I just don't see any other answer. Either you had a small piece of brass seperate. Something like at the crimp portion, which sometimes happens with well used 45-70 that is often heavily crimped. Or, if the last round you used was a HBRN, the bullet could have seperated and left a portion of the base in the bore. If this happened with the last round at your last range trip.....you would not know by chambering a sized piece of brass, or a round with your original bullet mold, because neither of those chamber deep enough to hit that obstruction. I know, if it was my gun, and round came out looking like that...I'm scoping it. Just me. If you have a .450 brass rod, you can slide it in from the muzzle......if there is an obstruction the size indicated by that ring, you should feel it. Maybe if you have a .450 Jag in your cleaning kit, that may do it, you'll have to measure it. I think a normal 45 cal cleaning jag with a patch would likely slide right past that obstruction without notice.
 
Thanks for the bore scope idea. I have a bore scope that feeds its images to my laptop computer. I'll take a look later tonight.

Jim G
 
Push the same bullet into the muzzle end and compare ring marks
JimGnitecki said:
It is very hard to measure the diameter at the interference ring, but my Mitutoyo digital caliper seems to consistently produce ab out .385" diameter at the base-end of the ring.

The following comparison of uncoated bullets and powder coated bullets, after sizing in the Lee sizer (which sizes only the bullet shank of course) is interesting for its unexpected outcome.

For it, I randomly slected 3 uncoated bullets and 3 coated bullets. I don't know how truly accurate the following measurments can be, since they depend on very accurately grasping the bullet ogive in the measuring device exactly barely above the topmost driving band. I did the 2 sets of 3 uncoated and 3 coated bullets twice, and got slightly different measurments and averages each time!

But, for what they are worth, the measured diameter of the base of the OGIVE, just above the topmost driving band, when measured with my Mitutoyo digital micrometer (for at least better accuracy than with the digital micrometer) appears to be:
Bare sized bullet = .447" (average of 3 bullets)
Powder coated and sized bullet = .449" (average of 3 bullets)
This implies roughly a .001" powder thickness after curing (.449 minus .447 divided by 2 since it is a diameter we are measuring)

So the powder coating does of course increase the ogive diameter, but very slightly.

This would merely mean that the powder coated bullet will contact the rifle metal obstruction (wherevever it is) sooner, and therefor if we could somehow measure very accurately from the top of the top driving band to the bottom of the interference ring (we cannot), we would find that the measurement would be slightly higher for the powder coated bullet. But that difference is NOT responsible for the problem encountered here. NEITHER of the bullets, coated or uncoated, will chamber. The DIFFERENCE in exactly what depth they each encounter rifle metal resistance is ridiculosuly immnaterial. The interference here is not that subtle. It is mammoth

Again, it's the ogive shape that is causing this, and the severity of MY specific situation MIGHT be because I happened to get a mold that was cut by a new or almost new cherry. A new cherry would cut a larger mold cavity than a worn one, right?

Jim G
Click to expand...
Yes new=larger... the pc being an issue here is also a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Am I correct in my alloying plan for Pedersoli Sharps replica rifle cast bullets?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
JimGnitecki
J
R
  • Locked
Lyman M Die
Replies
7
Views
2K
brickeyee
B
J
Is BHN 10 for OLD wheel weights typical & sufficient for 500g buffalo rifle bullet handload pressures?
2
Replies
38
Views
807
JimGnitecki
J
H
The COAL epiphany
Replies
13
Views
463
N555
N555
J
  • Locked
Interesting unexpected COAL issue due to Dillon 9mm bullet seating die
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
JimGnitecki
J
Back
Top