Meaningful sorting.

[AJC1]

A bench rest shooter will have a reason or theory to sort every thing into groups. My first loading of my noe .310-165-pb did not yield at all the results I was looking for. I checked the weight and the mean and standard deviation was inside 2 grains so I disregarded that as a reason. I posted a thread on lead spring back during bullet sizing and the general consensus was that there was no meaningful springback in lead regardless of hardness. As a data point these bullets were cast at bhn 18 because they were plain base, and because I had never worked with lead that hard despite the world demanding that bullets needed to be hard. My experience so far lead me to success with 38s and 45s doing great in the 9-10 bhn and my 357 meeting my needs at 11-12 bhn. Well we got a thunderstorm passing over and I sorted every 165 that I had "ready to load" my discovery was that I had a pile at .309 the size of my Lee sizing die, the largest group at .310, and a pile at .310+ through .313. Now I believe that .001 in variation would probably generate reasonable spreads on target, but the .313 would definitely be a flier. How would you sort cast bullets????

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

A bench rest shooter will have a reason or theory to sort every thing into groups. My first loading of my noe .310-165-pb did not yield at all the results I was looking for. I checked the weight and the mean and standard deviation was inside 2 grains so I disregarded that as a reason. I posted a thread on lead spring back during bullet sizing and the general consensus was that there was no meaningful springback in lead regardless of hardness. As a data point these bullets were cast at bhn 18 because they were plain base, and because I had never worked with lead that hard despite the world demanding that bullets needed to be hard. My experience so far lead me to success with 38s and 45s doing great in the 9-10 bhn and my 357 meeting my needs at 11-12 bhn. Well we got a thunderstorm passing over and I sorted every 165 that I had "ready to load" my discovery was that I had a pile at .309 the size of my Lee sizing die, the largest group at .310, and a pile at .310+ through .313. Now I believe that .001 in variation would probably generate reasonable spreads on target, but the .313 would definitely be a flier. How would you sort cast bullets????

I think there are two questions that have to be asked before your main questions can be answered: First, what is your intent for these bullets? Are you maximizing cost, accuracy, terminal impact, velocity or something else? Second, how much is your time worth? That’s a serious question to some of us. I’m not retired so my time is pretty valuable. Then again, shooting and loading are hobbies so any time invested is a labor of love. It’s a balancing act.
If you are maximizing cost and your time is very precious, just sort them into batches of good, better, best. If you are maximizing accuracy and your time is highly expendable, melt and re-cast anything that isn’t nearly perfect. You only end up with two piles that way: pass or fail. Since it comes down to time, hard work, and money, THEN preference, there are approximately 729 combinations or possible answers (6 variables, 3 potential combinations of each, 3^6=729).

 

[AJC1]

I think there are two questions that have to be asked before your main questions can be answered: First, what is your intent for these bullets? Are you maximizing cost, accuracy, terminal impact, velocity or something else? Second, how much is your time worth? That’s a serious question to some of us. I’m not retired so my time is pretty valuable. Then again, shooting and loading are hobbies so any time invested is a labor of love. It’s a balancing act.
If you are maximizing cost and your time is very precious, just sort them into batches of good, better, best. If you are maximizing accuracy and your time is highly expendable, melt and re-cast anything that isn’t nearly perfect. You only end up with two piles that way: pass or fail. Since it comes down to time, hard work, and money, THEN preference, there are approximately 729 combinations or possible answers (6 variables, 3 potential combinations of each, 3^6=729).

I resized those in the outlier group and they fell into the .309 or .310 group. So measuring each one every time seems the correct answer and making two piles. I'm curious what the estimated pressure difference is between the two. Separating the two groups makes a 308 and a 30-30 pile. I did intend this and the 173 HTC mold to pull double duty.

 

[41 Mag]

I poured up a 4x4x4in cardboard box full of some 165gr flat point gas checked around 6 months or so ago. Since then I have powder coated around 50 of them and lubed up another 50 using Carnuba Red.

I loaded and shot 10 of each and at 50 and 100yds they both shot under 2.5" groups out of my Ruger Compact. I considered weight sorting but figured due to my limited use and their performance I had no real reason.

Loaded to around 2200fps over H4895 they should work just fine for casual plinking or an occasional squirrel or hog.

 

[jmorris]

How would you sort cast bullets?

Instead of starting out with methods to perform tasks, I would probably start by setting a goal. Then I would sort reasonable sample sizes for testing, to see if I needed to sort at all and if doing so would achieve the results I desired.

If it did, by weight variation (that I mitigate when I am making ingots) I would probably finish the device I fiddled with playing with a loadcell, and relating weight to servo position and swap out the case collator for a base down bullet collator.



If it did by diameter (your variation seems like a lot, might focus on why, to see if you can fix that part, before getting into sorting) I would go more in the direction of my diameter based case sorter. It can sort 380 from 9mm (.020) and a shorter more precise bullet version would probably easier to build as the end to end variation (taper) would be much smaller.



If my goad was superb accuracy, I would probably just buy some good JHP’s to test.

 

[AJC1]

Instead of starting out with methods to perform tasks, I would probably start by setting a goal. Then I would sort reasonable sample sizes for testing, to see if I needed to sort at all and if doing so would achieve the results I desired.

If it did, by weight variation (that I mitigate when I am making ingots) I would probably finish the device I fiddled with playing with a loadcell, and relating weight to servo position and swap out the case collator for a base down bullet collator.



If it did by diameter (your variation seems like a lot, might focus on why, to see if you can fix that part, before getting into sorting) I would go more in the direction of my diameter based case sorter. It can sort 380 from 9mm (.020) and a shorter more precise bullet version would probably easier to build as the end to end variation (taper) would be much smaller.



If my goad was superb accuracy, I would probably just buy some good JHP’s to test.

I agree my initial variation was unexpected and very bad. I don't know why that was, maybe I made a mistake or I was helped when I wasn't looking. Due to that batch being my first rifle batch I don't have an established process and that itself is problematic. I did get variation way down and sorted by .309 and .310. The size out of the mold is .312 at bhn 18 which is .002 larger than the .310 it's supposed to drop with wheel weights. I'm far from figuring out rifle but if I don't get started I'll never get er done. My second attempt with the HTC mold is much less problematic.

 

[WeekendReloader]

I resized those in the outlier group and they fell into the .309 or .310 group. So measuring each one every time seems the correct answer and making two piles. I'm curious what the estimated pressure difference is between the two. Separating the two groups makes a 308 and a 30-30 pile. I did intend this and the 173 HTC mold to pull double duty.

You say they all fell within the size after the second time through the sizing die.
Well... Why not save some time and just run them through twice to begin with? Skip the pre-sorting and measuring step all together?
You could measure some to verify this works, then have at it.

 

[AJC1]

You say they all fell within the size after the second time through the sizing die.
Well... Why not save some time and just run them through twice to begin with? Skip the pre-sorting and measuring step all together?
You could measure some to verify this works, then have at it.

I believed they were all sized. That failure is obviously on me and I'm not denying it. I'm kinda flying blind as I don't even have the mix decided and now that this batch is sorted I'm considering a test pour with the bhn 11 I currently have in the pot. Dropping .312 means I'm trying to reduce by .003. That might be OK but then adding .002 of pc and sizing down a total of .005 I don't think that's good. I've seen sparse discussions on sizing over a certain amount causing problems. I definitely don't have answers yet.

 

[kalielkslayer]

I have minimal experience casting so I would go another way if it was me. I would load 5 of each diameter and shoot them. The ones that were most accurate would be what I would strive for, others would get recast.

I imagine weighing and measuring individual bullets is very time consuming, it would be for me.

Me? I would probably compromise on my accuracy requirements with a cast bullet if I had a jacketed bullet load that was accurate out of that gun. Personally, the cast would only be for fun shooting, or when components were no longer available so I would be the only guy around still making a boom. But that’s just me.

 

[AJC1]

I have minimal experience casting so I would go another way if it was me. I would load 5 of each diameter and shoot them. The ones that were most accurate would be what I would strive for, others would get recast.

I imagine weighing and measuring individual bullets is very time consuming, it would be for me.

Me? I would probably compromise on my accuracy requirements with a cast bullet if I had a jacketed bullet load that was accurate out of that gun. Personally, the cast would only be for fun shooting, or when components were no longer available so I would be the only guy around still making a boom. But that’s just me.

Unfortunately my goal is to achieve jacketed accuracy with cast. It's definitely going to be a long journey, but most things worth while are investments. This goal is two fold, trying to save money, ha ha and to develop knowledge and skill. Then when I know my butt from a hole in the ground I'll teach others that want to know like my son. Why I enjoy the struggle is nonsensical but success is sweet.

 

[Barbaroja]

Unfortunately my goal is to achieve jacketed accuracy with cast. It's definitely going to be a long journey, but most things worth while are investments. This goal is two fold, trying to save money, ha ha and to develop knowledge and skill. Then when I know my butt from a hole in the ground I'll teach others that want to know like my son. Why I enjoy the struggle is nonsensical but success is sweet.

Lofty goals but achievable! I’m on the same journey. Most of my sorting is rifle bullets. I weight them all into different lots within a .5g window. Far outliers heavy or light usually get shot as plinkers but sometimes go back into the pot and recast.

 

[AJC1]

Lofty goals but achievable! I’m on the same journey. Most of my sorting is rifle bullets. I weight them all into different lots within a .5g window. Far outliers heavy or light usually get shot as plinkers but sometimes go back into the pot and recast.

The beauty of casting is that time is all that is lost. 100% recycled for a mulligan

 

[jmorris]

Unfortunately my goal is to achieve jacketed accuracy with cast.

The only people I know that would use a cast bullet at a benchrest match are forced to by CBA or other rules.

Might kick the dirt here, to find others that try.

https://forum.castbulletassoc.org/cat/bullet-casting/

 

[AJC1]

The only people I know that would use a cast bullet at a benchrest match are forced to by CBA or other rules.

Might kick the dirt here, to find others that try.

https://forum.castbulletassoc.org/cat/bullet-casting/

The black powder guys used to do it at the Pala range in san diego. There was a book by that title jacketed performance with cast that I'm still trying to get. It would not be a goal of mine to compete with cast other than the lever action Silhouette, which is as much about off hand skill than anything. That is why I discuss 357 the most.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

This goal is two fold, trying to save money, ha ha and to develop knowledge and skill.

Aha! Now we have a mission statement. Excellent!
Since time is not a factor take a sample of bullets at random, measure EVERY essential dimension and note them by sample. Then cut those samples in half length wise and examine the inside of each for grain, pockets, and color changes. Correlation is not causation but if you can gather enough information you can create a cause-and-effect theory then build up to a process of elimination. Time investment HUGE! but money investment is negligible and the learning experience is unlimited - which is everything.

 

[AJC1]

Aha! Now we have a mission statement. Excellent!
Since time is not a factor take a sample of bullets at random, measure EVERY essential dimension and note them by sample. Then cut those samples in half length wise and examine the inside of each for grain, pockets, and color changes. Correlation is not causation but if you can gather enough information you can create a cause-and-effect theory then build up to a process of elimination. Time investment HUGE! but money investment is negligible and the learning experience is unlimited - which is everything.

That sounds to much like lean six sigma... yuck ha ha...

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

That sounds to much like lean six sigma... yuck ha ha...

MIL-STD 105 E. Batch process manufacturer inspection and acceptance/rejection standards. The predecessor to ISO 2859. The level of inspection is variable. My recommendation (since time is not a critical factor but cost is) is to use a large sample and intense inspection of a large set of factors contributing to acceptance/rejection of the batch. Basic QC for batch lots of any product.

 

[41 Mag]

Couple of things I've learned. Probably all listed on the http://www.lasc.us/ArticleIndex.htm site.

First is the temp of your alloy as well as the temp of your mold will effect the diameter and weights of your bullets. Once I start a run, I usually discard the first half dozen throws just to make sure my mold is up to temp with the alloy. Then I hit a cadence and try to keep my pour rate equally spaced. I can usually check my mold with my cheap infrared thermometer and it will stay within around a 50 degree span of my up to temp start temp after the initial heat up.

Also if you are considering accuracy, you should give the bullets a couple to three weeks to settle. Sounds weird but it helps.

I went from a thermometer to using a DIY PID control for my lead pot and that also helped dramatically. The temp swings I got when just using the dial on the pot were hard to keep up with.

As for the sizing, I would do the PC then size. If needed I have used a bit of sizing lube to help with some slightly thick bullets. As long as the coating remains in place you should be good to go. There are limits though to how much you can squeeze them down.

I would try keeping the first 6 or so throws separate, then dump a dozen or so at a good regulated pace, and just for kicks add another half dozen or so at a fast pace to get the mold really warm. Let those all sit for week and then do your checks. I know that I have had the hardness still be changing after three weeks on a couple of blends back when I was testing for my HP alloy. Usually after that it had settled in and was pretty stable.

Hope that helps.

 

[BJung]

The OP asks how I sort my cast bullets. I'll add how I cast too because casting technique effects bullet weight. I take my PC cast bullets and use an electronic scale. I might slide the bullet on the dish a bit to determine a standard reading. Then, I flick the bullet in the direction of a radial separated by dividers. I don't waste my time picking up the bullet and setting it back into a certain pile. Then, I bag the most common weights separately. I remelt outliers that might end up in ingots I cast for my brother's future fishing weight collection. As for size, I assume all of the bullets are close to the same diameter because they've been sized through my Lee Sizing Die. My weights don't vary as much as when I started casting and learned about pot temperature and swirl casting. Also, my brass molds have thrown very consistent weight compared to my aluminum Lee molds I started with. The Lee molds could cast a more consistent weight bullet with improved skill and the use of a hot plate to stabilize mold temperature.

 

[BWS]

This is gonna sound chest pounding so was reluctant to post;

We have quite a few cast only rigs here that are truly amazing in the accuracy and velocity (well into JB numbers) aspects. I cast a cpl hundred bullets at a time of any particular rifle mould...... that's plenty. They get put in discarded microwave pans for storage.

Generally on say a 130-170g, 6.5mm through .30 moulds I'll grab 10 or so bullets and weigh a few. If they're over .2 grains different something is/was wrong with the pour. More often than not they're in @.2 or less.

I only shoot bore riders;

The as cast body diameters aren't as big of deal as the noses..... which because of the style of nose sizers we make/use(they're a class of "ring gage") it becomes obvious on their (nose) numbers. Roundness,is a large part of this dimension.... if it isn't round,your measuring is an uphill battle. How a mould "drops" isn't totally about diameter. Think of it as a tightrope walk with diameter on one side and roundness on the other. Consistent weight and your ability to repeat,is one key that unlocks the door to these two.

Another,kinda esoteric but not if you experience it;

All our lube sizers are set up to use torque wrenches as their handles,with the ability to also use the factory. The torque #'s that a particular style of bullet/alloy can support is observed. On the ratio,or mechanical advantage built in I like around 100-150 inch pounds. It puts the beam style wrench reading right in it's sweet spot. It's more complex but that's the gist. Once the "crush" number is observed it has some influence on the subsequent sizing. It also gets utilized in final GC seating. Initial or preseat,is done on a small C frame jewelry press..... mainly because of "feel". It's this same idea that the torque wrench shows up(like stoopid easily) on what the bullet's crush numbers are.

Won't get into roll sizing and spinning but,RARELY does a bullet go much deeper than the GC down into an H&I sizer. Usually about 1/2 way "up" on the lowest drive band,no deeper. We make our own H&I dies. The leade in on these is uber critical.... I'd say even moreso than the chamber leade? These are really best done on an individual basis..... it's got to do with how a particular mould drops the GC shank. AND, the nose dimensions. If you want to "bump" the nose up a few "tenths"(.0001),go with a shorter leade in. Or,if the top punch has been drilled N tapped for the set screw nose dimpler... Too long of a bevel leade in causes misalignment.... another tight rope.

Getting your dropped weights stoopid close,and pay real attention to the noses roundness..... everything else,for the most part is fixable. Sorry for the long post,it really is much deeper. Good luck with your project.

 

[jmorris]

It would not be a goal of mine to compete with cast other than the lever action Silhouette, which is as much about off hand skill than anything.

Fair enough, what is the goal?

 

[AJC1]

Couple of things I've learned. Probably all listed on the http://www.lasc.us/ArticleIndex.htm site.

First is the temp of your alloy as well as the temp of your mold will effect the diameter and weights of your bullets. Once I start a run, I usually discard the first half dozen throws just to make sure my mold is up to temp with the alloy. Then I hit a cadence and try to keep my pour rate equally spaced. I can usually check my mold with my cheap infrared thermometer and it will stay within around a 50 degree span of my up to temp start temp after the initial heat up.

Also if you are considering accuracy, you should give the bullets a couple to three weeks to settle. Sounds weird but it helps.

I went from a thermometer to using a DIY PID control for my lead pot and that also helped dramatically. The temp swings I got when just using the dial on the pot were hard to keep up with.

As for the sizing, I would do the PC then size. If needed I have used a bit of sizing lube to help with some slightly thick bullets. As long as the coating remains in place you should be good to go. There are limits though to how much you can squeeze them down.

I would try keeping the first 6 or so throws separate, then dump a dozen or so at a good regulated pace, and just for kicks add another half dozen or so at a fast pace to get the mold really warm. Let those all sit for week and then do your checks. I know that I have had the hardness still be changing after three weeks on a couple of blends back when I was testing for my HP alloy. Usually after that it had settled in and was pretty stable.

Hope that helps.

I keep considering adding that temperature probe to the mold option. For a data based approach that would be an important set to have. My sprue cutting force by hand meter is useful though.

 

[AJC1]

Fair enough, what is the goal?

I figure a good start would be 2 moa at 100 with a string of 5. This would be inital and once I can maintain it reduce. That shouldn't be terribly hard to achieve until applied across multiple molds. As a point of learning, I don't know if it would be more helpful to focus on one or bring all in a group to that standard. I'm also guessing a gas checked design would be easier to meet initial expectations with.

 

[AJC1]

This is gonna sound chest pounding so was reluctant to post;

We have quite a few cast only rigs here that are truly amazing in the accuracy and velocity (well into JB numbers) aspects. I cast a cpl hundred bullets at a time of any particular rifle mould...... that's plenty. They get put in discarded microwave pans for storage.

Generally on say a 130-170g, 6.5mm through .30 moulds I'll grab 10 or so bullets and weigh a few. If they're over .2 grains different something is/was wrong with the pour. More often than not they're in @.2 or less.

I only shoot bore riders;

The as cast body diameters aren't as big of deal as the noses..... which because of the style of nose sizers we make/use(they're a class of "ring gage") it becomes obvious on their (nose) numbers. Roundness,is a large part of this dimension.... if it isn't round,your measuring is an uphill battle. How a mould "drops" isn't totally about diameter. Think of it as a tightrope walk with diameter on one side and roundness on the other. Consistent weight and your ability to repeat,is one key that unlocks the door to these two.

Another,kinda esoteric but not if you experience it;

All our lube sizers are set up to use torque wrenches as their handles,with the ability to also use the factory. The torque #'s that a particular style of bullet/alloy can support is observed. On the ratio,or mechanical advantage built in I like around 100-150 inch pounds. It puts the beam style wrench reading right in it's sweet spot. It's more complex but that's the gist. Once the "crush" number is observed it has some influence on the subsequent sizing. It also gets utilized in final GC seating. Initial or preseat,is done on a small C frame jewelry press..... mainly because of "feel". It's this same idea that the torque wrench shows up(like stoopid easily) on what the bullet's crush numbers are.

Won't get into roll sizing and spinning but,RARELY does a bullet go much deeper than the GC down into an H&I sizer. Usually about 1/2 way "up" on the lowest drive band,no deeper. We make our own H&I dies. The leade in on these is uber critical.... I'd say even moreso than the chamber leade? These are really best done on an individual basis..... it's got to do with how a particular mould drops the GC shank. AND, the nose dimensions. If you want to "bump" the nose up a few "tenths"(.0001),go with a shorter leade in. Or,if the top punch has been drilled N tapped for the set screw nose dimpler... Too long of a bevel leade in causes misalignment.... another tight rope.

Getting your dropped weights stoopid close,and pay real attention to the noses roundness..... everything else,for the most part is fixable. Sorry for the long post,it really is much deeper. Good luck with your project.

This is a very refined process and sounds like it will produce the final results I'm looking for. I may need to check with you as I progress on what would be the next step to improve. I do like sizing after pc as it reduces steps. Currently I size gas checked designs before to install the check and then pc and size again.

 

[BWS]

Would have to say one of the biggest jumps in my accuracy across the board(many different cals)is tapered nose sizing.

Give me a bore rider with a .0005-.001" oversized nose and a tapered sizer. Tapers are soooooo cool as they allow you to adjust the "jam" independently from where the bullet's base is within the case neck.

I've had some stoopid good accuracy from bullets with the base down below the case neck... so don't necessarily go along with the theory the base has to,or is best not below that point. No,what I'm sayin is....

You can really tune a HV load by changing where the taper engages chamber leade.

Another area that can make a big difference in a factory chamber is testing loaded round,neck OD to chamber clearance. Tony Boyer writes about sine wave shaped traces of blowback on a neck when he's in tune....

I've seen not just discoloration,but taken to an extreme(in tests,there wasn't a specific clearance.... each chamber/bullet/jam is a rule to itself..mostly) have seen antimony *"buggers" blown back. They're these tiny almost perfectly spherical balls that cling to the fired case neck. "Usually" that's when you get into around a total of .002" clearance....and some pretty jacked up loads. I see it more with the medium slow powders,4895,Varget,etc. Going to 4831 speed powders work better.

*antimony "wash" is where it paints the bore within the first cpl inches of the barrel.... but that's with more typical neck-chamber clearance. When that space closes up,I'm guessing here.... the "wash" turned to buggers. Real scientific huh? Haha.