New bullets for Ruger Old Army; solid 260 grain, hollow base 225 grain

[Onty]

I am in process of developing a new bullet for Ruger Old Army. Actually reviving an old idea https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-right-bullet-for-this-grand-revolver.661084/ .

Anyhow, I am in contact with Miha from MP-MOLDS https://www.mp-molds.com/ regrading this new bullet. We are working on two versions;

- Cramer style mold; flat point, hollow base (FP-HB) 225 grains, and option for solid, flat point, flat base (FP-FB) 260 grains

- Solid style mold, flat point, flat base (FP-FB) 260 grain only




As you could see, there is a conical portion in front of first driving band. It was purposely done 5° (included) to match forcing cone of ROA barrel. According to a gentlemen who had designed some boolits for 44 Magnum Ruger SBH, RH and SRH, this design offers maximum contact surface between boolit and barrel forcing cone, resulting in minimum boolit deformation and better boolit alignment, contributing to grater accuracy.

Initially, I was thinking about accurate bullet 220-230 grains. Searching through various bullet designes, I found that some of most accurate bullets have hollow base. Now, since for hollow base option is Cramer mold, it´s just matter of adding additional set of bottom pins to get solid flat base bullet. In a nutshell, same hollow based pins could be just flipped to get solid flat base bullet, but pins will be protruding from bottom of the mold and could be easily damaged.

Another thing, we hope that with this design we could avoid use of pure lead, and use wheel weight instead.

Regarding molds, here are following options:

- Cramer style, brass, 2 cavities and 4 cavities, pins for HB only
- Cramer style, brass, 2 cavities and 4 cavities, pins for and HB and FB
- Solid style, brass or aluminum, probably 2, 4 or 6 (aluminum only) cavities, FB only

Once we have design frozen, we will make a prototypes and test them.

NOTE: MP-MOLDS is making bullet molds by peripheral milling, so if you desire another diameter, like .454, or .450, it could be done. As far as I know, there is no additional cost, but I will have to verify this.

I would appreciate your comments and suggestions.

 

[arcticap]

Another thing, we hope that with this design we could avoid use of pure lead, and use wheel weight instead....
...I would appreciate your comments and suggestions.

It's your mold and if you want to use wheel weight lead then so be it.
But isn't wheel weight lead inconsistent and getting harder to find?
Is there some sort of standard composition or formula for wheel weight lead that can be identified or replicated?
If a person owned more than one gun and they wanted to be able to try it out in a different model, then pure lead may be more preferable.
Pure lead is what most ML shooters use and have on hand.
And pure lead would also make it a little easier to resize, to ram and to allow the hollow base to obturate during firing.

I like the idea of a hollow base and think that it's a good idea.
I don't know whether the type of lead really matters, but since you asked for suggestions, that's what came to mind.
And I guess that a person could always use pure lead and it would be cast slightly smaller in diameter, which could also be a plus for using it in other guns.
About how much do you think that it would shrink by casting it with pure lead, maybe .001 - .002?
Do you or Miha have any idea about the shrinkage, could you ask him?

How much room for powder do you think would be left in the Ruger chamber when loading either of these bullets?
Do you think that the hollow base bullet would allow for a little more powder to be loaded and approximately how much?

Have you thought about trying to hollow point it after it's cast, for instance by drilling a hole into the tip?

The bullets look like they might have applications for use in cartridges too.
Very interesting.

 

[rodwha]

How much room for powder do you think would be left in the Ruger chamber when loading either of these bullets?

I can make a pretty good educated guess here despite not having an overall length shown. I’d say it’s more than 26 but less than 32 grns of 3F powder. Were I betting I’d go with 27.5 grns

 

[rodwha]

Why is it a hollow base is inherently more accurate? At .452” there won’t be anything to obturate.

What is the diameter of the lower 2 driving bands?

 

[arcticap]

Why is it a hollow base is inherently more accurate? At .452” there won’t be anything to obturate.

What is the diameter of the lower 2 driving bands?

At .06", aren't the driving bands sort of narrow or thin?

If they are pretty thin, then expansion may help to keep them from being stripped by the rifling.

Rodwha, with your bullet, how wide are your driving bands, and the top driving band in particular? --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/custom-bullet-critique.872773/#post-11596165

I would like to know to compare their width.

You have a point about the hollow base.
I'm trying to come up with a good reason for it.
Perhaps being made with wheel weight lead, the driving bands won't strip as easily?

 

[rodwha]

At .06", aren't the driving bands sort of narrow or thin?

If they are pretty thin, then expansion may help to keep them from being stripped by the rifling.

Rodwha, with your bullet, how wide are your driving bands, and the top driving band in particular? --->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/custom-bullet-critique.872773/#post-11596165

I would like to know to compare their width.

You have a point about the hollow base.
I'm trying to come up with a good reason for it.
Perhaps being made with wheel weight lead, the driving bands won't strip as easily?

My original design has a base driving band width of 0.05” and I’d venture to guess it increases to 0.06” once shaved. The top band is 0.1” but might be as much as 0.12” after it’s shaved. My modified design has a base band of 0.055” and an upper band of 0.095”.

I can’t say whether the band is too thin or not, but being that my bullets are also loaded in my repro I didn’t want too much friction. The heavy 285 grn bullet I made for my ROA has much longer bands as I estimated a max load of 25 grns and wanted to increase the pressures tremendously to help give it some velocity.

It would be nice to recover fired bullets to see what has happened.

 

[Onty]

Thank you all for replies!

Regarding why hollow base, here is interesting statement:

ReloaderFred:
When I was shooting PPC for our department pistol team back in the late 1970's, I shot about 1,500 rounds of 148 grain HBWC bullets a week in practice, and then 360 per weekend in matches. We experimented with bevel base bullets, but could never get the level of accuracy at 25 and 50 yards with them that we could get with HBWC bullets. I used to have a target from my K-38, fired from a Ransom Rest, with 148 grain HBWC's, that was 10 rounds in 1 7/8" at 50 yards. I don't have it anymore, since I lost it in a divorce, along with every other worldly possession in 1984.....

Solid wadcutters have never been as accurate at target velocities as hollow base wadcutters, in my experience. The hollow base bullet has such a long bearing surface, and obturates so well with the light powder charges, that it's hard to beat for barrel fit.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/148-bevel-base-vs-hollow-base-wadcutters.299879/

Others also support Fred regarding better accuracy with hollow base than with solid base. I am assuming that almost all revolvers have bit of constriction in barrel thread area. With high pressure loads bullet will obturate even when there is slight constriction in the barrel. However, low pressure loads cannot obturate solid base bullets, but hollow base will.

As for hollow base volume, it is 0.206 cm3. Also, I added length, it is .650". Regarding driving bands, all of them have same dia, in this case .458" (Ø.458x3).

 

[arcticap]

As for hollow base volume, it is 0.206 cm3. Also, I added length, it is .650". Regarding driving bands, all of them have same dia, in this case .458" (Ø.458x3).

The hollow base volume equals 3 grains of powder.
Thank you.

 

[rodwha]

A suggestion I’d strongly recommend is to lengthen the rebated base so that more fits down into the chamber. I’d also recommend widening it to give a tighter fit so it’s more aligned. The rebated base on 2 of my designs is also short and I found that sometimes the bullet will cant to a side badly. The Ruger chambers (I’ve actually not measured mine) are said to be 0.453”.

Way back when I could have sworn I saw the Lee RN for the Ruger dropped at 0.456”. If it did they changed it, but it’s what I settled for my designs. With a bullet there’s no need to be grossly oversized like a ball. Were it me I’d reduce the diameter to 0.454-5. I now have a resizing die I can reduce my bullets to 0.454”. I hate fiddling with lead rings and at times they just get smashed into the bullet nose. My NMA has been chamfered and I’m thinking of doing the same with my ROA.

I’m a bit curious as to what constitutes low pressure here. I figured with as much bullet as you created here hunting may well be in mind. But now I can see how maybe in a way like I am you are wanting to use lead as filler for your more accurate, in this case target, load. What load do you use in your pistol?

 

[rodwha]

The hollow base volume equals 3 grains of powder.
Thank you.

I’m skeptical one could fill the cavity of a hollow base that’s deep like that. I’m also wondering now how it effects powder compression in the chambers.

 

[whughett]

Wasn’t the original concept of hollow base wad cutters to allow for low pressure ,low velocity target loads. . The hollow base would expand and better seal the chamber against gas blow by and thus leading.

 

[Onty]

A suggestion I’d strongly recommend is to lengthen the rebated base so that more fits down into the chamber. I’d also recommend widening it to give a tighter fit so it’s more aligned. The rebated base on 2 of my designs is also short and I found that sometimes the bullet will cant to a side badly. The Ruger chambers (I’ve actually not measured mine) are said to be 0.453”.

Way back when I could have sworn I saw the Lee RN for the Ruger dropped at 0.456”. If it did they changed it, but it’s what I settled for my designs. With a bullet there’s no need to be grossly oversized like a ball. Were it me I’d reduce the diameter to 0.454-5. I now have a resizing die I can reduce my bullets to 0.454”. I hate fiddling with lead rings and at times they just get smashed into the bullet nose. My NMA has been chamfered and I’m thinking of doing the same with my ROA.

I’m a bit curious as to what constitutes low pressure here. I figured with as much bullet as you created here hunting may well be in mind. But now I can see how maybe in a way like I am you are wanting to use lead as filler for your more accurate, in this case target, load. What load do you use in your pistol?

As a matter of fact, I had loading press in sight when designing this bullet. With plunger square on base and consequently with cylinder front face, I think tipping of the bullet shouldn't be the issue.

As "low pressure", I consider the level BP develops, and 45 Colt SAAMI specifications, 14 000 PSI. And yes, I had hunting in mind.

Also, considering that Ruger Old Army has a chambers usually .452 dia, I changed rebated dia to .450. Will discuss with Miha more about this and other bullet features.

Regarding cylinder chamfering, I always felt that this is much better than bullet shaving with sharp edge:

SHOOTING THE BLACK POWDER REVOLVER
© John L. Fuhring

Chamfering the chambers does three things for you. First: instead of shaving off a lot of lead and ending up with an undersized, and perhaps unsymmetrical ball, the ball is ‘swagged’ into the hole, thus making it possible to have a gas tight seal (assuming no trapped powder grains). Second: because you aren't cutting lead, but are swaging the ball in place (with just a very thin ring of lead shaved off), the rammer force is usually noticeably less. Third: because some or all of the balls in your cylinder won't be undersized or unsymmetrical by having been cut, each ball should fit the bore and engage the rifling better. When a ball fits the bore and engages the rifling properly, you should get a much more precise shot.

http://www.geojohn.org/BlackPowder/bps2.html

Some of you have concern about reduced powder space with this bullet. Considering 260 grains bullet here , this looks quite stiff load.

 

[rodwha]

I don’t know much about loading presses but I gather they load pretty straight much like the Colt ratchet gear systems I hear about. No loading in the field? The 6 you have is all you need? Honestly I believe the 6 is more than sufficient and I’ve contemplated 3 WFN and 3 HP versions for me, but I want to be capable of loading in the field too, even if I never do.

I’m a bit curious what you are hunting.

You have me a bit curious with this hollow base “nonsense.” I’ll take an improvement in accuracy, especially as I’m not convinced mass is necessary anyway seeing how well a little sphere seems to perform. Don’t get me wrong as I absolutely believe mass is good. I feel it’s all a balancing act that I think I understand to some degree.

His load most certainly looks pretty stiff indeed! The heaviest projectile I’ve used was Kaido’s 240 grn bullet with T7 (30-35 grns?) but it didn’t feel that heavy.

 

[Onty]

The hollow base is exactly the same as on .455-265 Webley.*

As for reloading, I am thinking about getting a second cylinder. Also, I will check if I can press bullet with clipped tip that will go into loading space. Hope that chamfered cylinder will help as described in http://www.geojohn.org/BlackPowder/bps2.html . If loading pressure is moderate, I will see if loading space can be slightly open.

I am hunting mostly wild boars. Also, one correction; hunting in Europe using handgun only is not permitted in almost all EU countries (as far as I know). However, handguns are allowed for coup de grâce, and in number of cases handgun was a last resort that saved hunters from wounded boars. For that reason, I do not bother with 9x19.

NOTE: When 455 Webley Mk I round was developed using black powder, they couldn't get the enough pressure. So they designed cylinder chamber with .447-.448 mouth. This increased pressure, but bullet was now undersized for proper fit in the barrel. Hollow base solved problem expanding bullet once is out of cylinder, getting good grip on rifling when in barrel.

 

[arcticap]

I don't agree that swagging a hard cast bullet will be easier to ram than cutting it at the chamber mouth.
Swagging a pure lead ball and swagging a hard bullet are two different things.
Only the smallest fraction of a sphere is being cut or swagged with a pure lead ball, whereas a bullet's driving bands are being cut or swagged as it's being rammed all of the way down into the chamber.
Swagging leaves more hard lead to displace inside the chamber during ramming than if the excess lead were simply cut off before entering the chamber.
Which may also happen at the forcing cone when the bullet is fired.
It seems to be contradictory to cast a hard bullet and then expect to swage it as if it were a pure lead round ball.
If the bullet is intended to be swagged then why cast it hard in the first place?
IMO swagging deforms the bullet more than cutting it since the bullet is designed to have part of it intentionally shaved off by using a clean and perfect cutting method.
IIRC chamfering chamber mouths was originally done to redirect gases away from adjacent chambers for the purpose of preventing chain fires.

 

[Onty]

I didn't think about using hard cast bullets, just ordinary wheel weight. Will have to check what is available in my area first. I have feeling that about half pure lead, half wheel weight, with touch of tin could be right mixture, will contact some experienced casters for their inputs. Actually, intention is to do some testing and will let you know what works the best.

 

[arcticap]

I didn't think about using hard cast bullets, just ordinary wheel weight. Will have to check what is available in my area first. I have feeling that about half pure lead, half wheel weight, with touch of tin could be right mixture, will contact some experienced casters for their inputs. Actually, intention is to do some testing and will let you know what works the best.

Wheel weights are "hard" compared to pure lead which the dictionary defines as "soft lead", but relatively speaking can be called "medium soft or medium hard."
As any experienced round ball caster can explain, round balls cast with wheel weights work, but they're harder to load.

 

[rodwha]

I’ve casted with nothing but pure lead but often seem to have fill issues. My pots set to the highest setting so I’ve thought about trying 2% tin. My understanding is that with cap n ball and full bore conicals for muzzleloaders one does not want to go beyond about 10 BHN, or just slightly harder than the 2% tin (7-8 BHN).

Since these pistol bullets won’t be going fast (my understanding is it takes about 1100-1200 FPS to expand pure lead reliably) I don’t see the need for hard lead, though I could certainly see using up scrap stuff or stretching your lead reserves, but I’d still shoot for <10 BHN. I’m not familiar with WW hardness so maybe you are in that realm as is to which I’d say carry on and report back