Viewing 21 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #23283
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      Well I finally got around to completing the test of the PC’d 225438s (100) and the 314299s (60) that leadman wanted me to test. I’m just reporting on the tests as he requested. I made no real effort to determine the most accurate load but conducted the tests as he requested. The object was to determine the accuracy at high velocity in the mid 2500s for the 225438s and the lower 2000 – 2200 fps for the 314299s. Leadman stated he had used H4895 with the 225438s and was getting around 2500 – 2600 fps out of his .223 Rem TC barrel with a 12″ twist. With the 314299s he said most were using a slower burning powder and getting 3 – 4 moa accuracy at 2100 – 2200 fps.

      I decided to test the 225438s with H4895 out of my M700V .223 Remington. It has a 23″ barrel with a 12″ twist and will shoot 1 – 1.5 moa with my own regular cast bullet loads at 2200 – 2350 fps. Thus I figured it would give leadman about the closest to “best” performance in a test.

      The velocities would probably be 100 fps +/- greater than his TC barrel. Cases used were LC88 and were primed with Remington 7 ½ primers. Cases were NS’d with a Redding NS die and a standard .22 M-die was used. All charges were weight checked and then thrown with a Lyman 55 to +/- .1 gr. I loaded 10 shot test loads of 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 gr of H4895. The 225438s were seated with the GC at the base of the neck. Leadman’s 225438s were HT’d linotype and were harder than a woodpecker’s lips and I will defer to him for the specifics on the bullets.

      At the range (Sara Park, LHC) the temp was in the mid ’60s with little if any wind. The target was at 100 yards. The start screen of the Oehler M35P was 15′ from the muzzle. The testing went smoothly with few interruptions.

      The 20 gr load went into 3.45″ at 2352 fps with a whopping 342 fps ES!

      The 21 gr load went into 2.9″ with an ES of 134 fps. This was the best accuracy.

      The 22 gr load opened up to 6.1″ at 2672 fps with a 200 fps ES.

      The 23 gr load ran 11″ for group at 2829 fps with a 138 fps ES.

      The 24 gr load was also open at 9.5″ at 2977 fps with the ES at 172 fps.

      It was obvious the H4895 was not igniting and burning efficiently under the 43….. gr 225438s.

      I also found a buildup of hard material in the barrel when I was cleaning the barrel at home. No leading was detected but there was something there that needed a good soaking of #9 solvent and about 20 passes of a bronze brush.

    • #23284
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      With the 314299s I decided to use my 7.62x54R MN M91/28 sniper as it shoots my own 314299s at 1850 fps into 1 – 1.5″ quite consistently.

      Cases used were fire formed Norma cases with WLR primers. They were NS’d in a shortened .284W Redding Bushing die and a bushing was used that gave .002 – .003 neck tension. The 314299s were seated with the GC at the base of the case, the same as with my own 314299s. I chose to use H4831 because of the use of several different slower burning powders reportedly used with this bullet in .303s, 7.65s and the 7.6x54R. Five shot test loads of 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 gr would be used as they would give me an idea of performance and I could use the remaining 20 bullets to confirm the results.

      This test followed the .223 test above with test conditions pretty much the same. I set the scope’s elevation on 500m but the 1st two shots went under the target. Upping the elevation to 700m the remaining 3 shots of the 45 gr test load went into a neat 1.9″ group at 2108 fps with an ES of 43.

      Thinking all was great I was then thoroughly disappointed as the 46 gr load went into 9.1″ at 2159 fps.

      The 47 gr load went into 10.6″ group at 2203 fps.

      Groups like that got me paranoid considering the reported excellent accuracy with PC’d bullets at such velocities and the know accuracy of my MN sniper rifle. Was the scope of my MN sniper going bad or was the PC coated bullets just shooting badly? To answer that question I put a bullseye target at 100 yards. I noticed that most of the bullet holes were not round and had signs of wobble or severe deformation. I switched to the iron sights. I can group my own load with the 314299 at 1850 fps in 2 – 3 moa with these sights so a quick test would tell the tale whether the PU scope went bad or the bullets/loads were very inaccurate.

      Well it was good to know the scope on the MN sniper was not going bad.

      The 48 gr load went into a paltry 8.5″.

      The 49 gr load at 2305 fps went into 9.5″ with 4 shots but 1 shot was lost off the target.

      The 50 gr load went into 10″.

      All the internal ballistics of ES and the SDs were excellent. Again with all 3 of these loads many of the bullet holes were not round indicating problems.

      As with the .223 rifle the MN M91/28 required a soaking with Hoppe’s #9 and considerable passes with the bronze bore brush to remove a hard deposit in the bore though no leading was noted on any patches.

    • #23285
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      With the 314299s I decided to use my 7.62x54R MN M91/28 sniper as it shoots my own 314299s at 1850 fps into 1 – 1.5″ quite consistently.

      Cases used were fire formed Norma cases with WLR primers. They were NS’d in a shortened .284W Redding Bushing die and a bushing was used that gave .002 – .003 neck tension. The 314299s were seated with the GC at the base of the case, the same as with my own 314299s. I chose to use H4831 because of the use of several different slower burning powders reportedly used with this bullet in .303s, 7.65s and the 7.6x54R. Five shot test loads of 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 gr would be used as they would give me an idea of performance and I could use the remaining 20 bullets to confirm the results.

      This test followed the .223 test above with test conditions pretty much the same. I set the scope’s elevation on 500m but the 1st two shots went under the target. Upping the elevation to 700m the remaining 3 shots of the 45 gr test load went into a neat 1.9″ group at 2108 fps with an ES of 43.

      Thinking all was great I was then thoroughly disappointed as the 46 gr load went into 9.1″ at 2159 fps.

      The 47 gr load went into 10.6″ group at 2203 fps.

      Groups like that got me paranoid considering the reported excellent accuracy with PC’d bullets at such velocities and the know accuracy of my MN sniper rifle. Was the scope of my MN sniper going bad or was the PC coated bullets just shooting badly? To answer that question I put a bullseye target at 100 yards. I noticed that most of the bullet holes were not round and had signs of wobble or severe deformation. I switched to the iron sights. I can group my own load with the 314299 at 1850 fps in 2 – 3 moa with these sights so a quick test would tell the tale whether the PU scope went bad or the bullets/loads were very inaccurate.

      Well it was good to know the scope on the MN sniper was not going bad.

      The 48 gr load went into a paltry 8.5″.

      The 49 gr load at 2305 fps went into 9.5″ with 4 shots but 1 shot was lost off the target.

      The 50 gr load went into 10″.

      All the internal ballistics of ES and the SDs were excellent. Again with all 3 of these loads many of the bullet holes were not round indicating problems.

      As with the .223 rifle the MN M91/28 required a soaking with Hoppe’s #9 and considerable passes with the bronze bore brush to remove a hard deposit in the bore though no leading was noted on any patches.

    • #23286
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      Having cogitated on the results for a few days I decided to try a couple things that usually advance accuracy; 1st a Dacron filler in the .223 loads to enhance more uniform ignition and burning with the lighter weight 225438s. In the 7.62x54R having found the PC’d 314299s seated harder than my own 314299s, which were lubed, I decided to do a test with the most promising load of 45 gr H4831 with lubed and unlubed PC’d 314299 bullets. Then on 2nd thought I decided to also lube the 225438s in a .225 H&I die. White Label 2500+ lube was used on both bullets.

      Again back at the same range with similar good conditions I tested 10 shot groups in the M700V of 20 and 22 gr H4895 with a .3 – .5 gr Dacron filler under the PC’d and lubed 225438s.

      The 20 gr load went into 3.65″ at 2594 fps with an ES of 68. Note the 140 fps increase in velocity over the previous 20 gr H4895 test load w/o the dacron filler and with unlubed bullets. Note also the drastic reduction in the ES. This appears to be an excellent load and one which should be very useful for informal shooting/practicing with an AR, especially one with a 12″ twist. Be interesting to further test in 7 and 9″ twist ARs.

      The 22 gr load ran 2900 fps but the ES jumped back up a bit. However it seems that with the 4.5″ group it should also be good for “blastin” with ARs. Again further testing is needed, especially out to 200 or even 300 yards.

      With the remaining twenty 314299s I lubed half of them in a .314 H&I die. Thus I loaded 10 bullets unlubed and 10 bullets lubed over 45 gr of H4831 with the 7.62x54R Norma cases prepped as before.

      The 10 shots w/o lube went into 5.15″ at the 100 yards. Velocity was 2120 fps and the ES was 108 fps. A couple of the bullet holes exhibited wobble.

      The 1st two shots of the lubed 314299s went high out of the group. The next 8 shots with the bore now fouled with lube went into a very useable 3.65″ at 2122 fps with an ES of 80 fps. Note the 100 fps velocity increase over the unlubed bullets. The ES for the 8 shots was a very good 43 fps.

      While not equal to the best accuracy this rifle is capable of this load at 2122 fps is a very usefull load for informal shooting with MNs, especially if compared to most milsurp ball accuracy. Definitely a useable load but further serious testing at 200 – 300 yards is needed.

      Obviously both the Dacron filler and lubing the PC’d 225438s were very beneficial in the .223 to increase the burning efficiency of H4895 under such a light cast bullet. Lubing the PC’d bullets was also quite beneficial to both bullets in both cartridges increasing velocity, decreasing the ES and improving accuracy with both loads tested. I know sizing and lubing PC’d bullets is generally not what the proponents want to do but apparently at high velocity it may be necessary for best performance of accuracy and reduction of fouling.

      Those are the results of my limited HV test. It does appear PCing cast bullets does hold some promise so you guys keep perfecting it. Want to thank leadman for supplying the PC’d bullets and being patient for the test results.

      Larry Gibson

    • #23299
      dverna
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 5
      • Comments: 81
      • Overall: 86

      Thank you for the testing and report Larry.

      If it is necessary to lube coated bullets to achieve “useable” accuracy, why bother coating? Or am I missing something?

      Don

    • #23305
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      dverna;n1267 wrote: Thank you for the testing and report Larry.

      If it is necessary to lube coated bullets to achieve “useable” accuracy, why bother coating? Or am I missing something?

      Don

      Don

      That was/is my conclusion also. Unless some of the PC boys come up with something definitive at HV using PC w/o having to lube I’ll not delve further into it. Have to say they do seem to be having good luck with it and low velocities.

      Larry Gibson

    • #23400
      Sgt. Mike
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 84
      • Comments: 789
      • Overall: 873

      Larry yer doing it wrong, ya have to use a AR-10 at 312 yards

      Nice write up to be serious, don’t remember where I read that somebody actually surmised that during the baking process that bullet was actually being annealed and getting softer versus harder. I think it was on the CBT “HV Stock Rifle how to”, The author may be on to something, after does anybody quench them after the bake?

    • #23403
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 4
      • Overall: 5

      Hello guy’s

      new to this board but came from the other place so I’m familiar with most names here 🙂

      I made a post on the other place about the 400 degree baking and affecting bhn, perhaps that is where you saw it.

      one guy checked bhn before and after and said it did soften bhn.

      I think more testing is needed as for dropping the boolit in cold water and recheck bhn, I will do this eventually but time right now is not available…. maybe someone has the time.

      Dave

    • #23405
      popper
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 293
      • Overall: 294

      I think those are HiTek coated, not PC and yes, I had the same problem with bore gunk using HiTek at high fps. I have NOT had that problem with HF red or any of Smoke’s PC powders

    • #23422
      yodogsandman
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 0
      • Comments: 6
      • Overall: 6

      Thanks for your report, Larry!

      When I last played with PC, I would heat treat in a convection oven at 450*F for at least an hour and turn the oven down to 400*F before quickly ESPC’ing them. Then I returned them to the oven for 10 minutes and quenched in ice cold water (with ice). I have no idea of the BHN but, it was much harder than usual. The powder would melt on contact with the bullet using this method.. Accuracy was still poor, too. I do plan to go back and play with PC some more someday. It will be after finding “the HV load” in one of my rifles, though, using lube.

    • #23437
      goody
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 18
      • Comments: 74
      • Overall: 92

      Thanks for the write up Larry, confirms my situation with a 308 and a 7.62×39 that were HFred , water quenched and lubed with simple lube shot tighter than with out lube. That brought me to the question as to why am I doing PC? Well for one I have wanted to get longer storage life from cast than the lubed only would give originally. Then I had this 308 and 7.62×39 that would not shoot acceptable groub with traditional lube only. When Pc was used they shot alittle better but with lube they really tightened up. I am not going on a PC lube kick but if I have trouble getting a gun to shoot I have one more option!

    • #23438
      az-jim
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 9
      • Comments: 36
      • Overall: 45

      One of you guys will surely beat me to it, but I am curious too as how well the PC will do at moderate to high velocities. The RCBS 95 grain bullets I cast and PC’d 2 weeks ago are slated for a test in a 6mm Dasher. I used that same bullet lubed with Ben’s Red to fire form the brass and had a couple of respectable 200 yard groups with it. And that was sort of just goofing around. IIRC it was over 16.5g of H380 and ran around 1900 fps. I would love to get 25-2800 fps and be able to be somewhat competitive in F class. Anyway, it will likely be a few weeks before I get to the range with it.

    • #23489
      goody
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 18
      • Comments: 74
      • Overall: 92

      az-jim, that was my goal at the start of this year. I follow the threads keenly of HV with cast but I don’t know if I have the where with all to get to their velocities. So I simply wanted to get to 2000-2300 fps and hold together to 200 yards. I am almost positive my shake and bake PC is not consistant enough for HV speed but it might be ok at 2300 and under. I read Larry’s article on bullet lube and I was only using Bens Red on cast only so I made a batch of the Simple Lube to see if that would help my groubs of cast only and out of the blue the thought came to try it on PC cast and my groubs tightened up. I tried Bens Red and they blew apart. I think Bens is too slippy for lube. I want to get some Lars 2500 sometime and try that.

    • #23530
      Anonymous
      Inactive
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 3
      • Overall: 4

      Larry, What was the bore condition after firing the PC and lubed boolits. Did you find the same “hard substance” or was that eliminated?

    • #23797
      MTtimberline
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 3
      • Comments: 37
      • Overall: 40

      Larry,
      What scope setup do you have on your M700V .223?

    • #23855
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      osteodoc08;n1566 wrote: Larry, What was the bore condition after firing the PC and lubed boolits. Did you find the same “hard substance” or was that eliminated?

      The hard substance was eliminated with the lubed PC bullets in both calibers. Cleaning was very easy and quick.

      Larry Gibson

    • #23856
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      MTtimberline;n1884 wrote: Larry,
      What scope setup do you have on your M700V .223?

      The scope in the pic above is a Leupold 6.5×20 Target. It currently resides on my 30×60 XCB Dawn. The M700V currently has a Bausch and Lomb 6×24 Elite on it. However I probably will take that off and put it on Dawn or my M70 Target rifle for CBA Heavy Rifle competition as the B&L scope has 1/8 moa adjustments whereas the Leupold has 1/4 moa adjustments. I will probably put the Weaver T-10 back on the M700V as it’s the scope I had on it for most of it’s life.

      Larry Gibson

    • #24347
      Newt
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 3
      • Comments: 40
      • Overall: 43

      Larry,

      I know this is an odd question, but what is the dimension of the end of your barrel? I know you mentioned you free floated it. I was looking into doing the same for mine, but ran across a LOT of talk of how the lighter weight barrels shoot better with some pressure at the forend. I am not completely sure, but I think I have a light weight barrel.

    • #26065
      popper
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 293
      • Overall: 294

      Az-jim Your tets will be interesting. Larry’s test was with lino & Hitek & my 308W tests get about the same results but with H.T. isocore. Real PC coated does very well with the same H.T. isocore. The lino in this test should be pretty darn hard. I tried hard alloy with the HiTek and got poor results, PC was fine. In this point of time, seems like it is easier to get good accuracy and HV from PC than HiTek in 30 cal.

    • #26087
      Larry Gibson
      Participant
      • Gold
      • ★★★
      • Posts: 55
      • Comments: 507
      • Overall: 562
      • Gold

      Newt;n2521 wrote: Larry,

      I know this is an odd question, but what is the dimension of the end of your barrel? I know you mentioned you free floated it. I was looking into doing the same for mine, but ran across a LOT of talk of how the lighter weight barrels shoot better with some pressure at the forend. I am not completely sure, but I think I have a light weight barrel.

      That’s what some say and it might be so in some rare instances of which in 50 years I’ve not found yet. Years ago i found heavy and light, long ad short barrels all shot more accurately with the actions properly bedded and the barrels free floated.

      The MtooV has a factory varmint contour at .75 at the muzzle end if memory serves me correctly.

      Larry Gibson

    • #26095
      JPHolla
      Participant
      • Silver
      • ★★
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 120
      • Overall: 121

      dverna;n1267 wrote: Thank you for the testing and report Larry.

      If it is necessary to lube coated bullets to achieve “useable” accuracy, why bother coating? Or am I missing something?

      Don

      In my experience thus far with PC rifle bullets, I have found that they pretty much always shoot better lubed. I believe powder coat is just too slick for slow rifle powders. I think Larry’s posted ES’s bear this out. Not to be an alarmist, but I wonder if the slick-ness could increase the chance of SEE in improperly reduced loads with slow ball powders. I have found three practical applications for PC in rifle:

      1. Increases diameter of bands and/or nose to fit a particular gun
      2. Even if bullet is still undersized, it can still prevent leading by protecting from gas cutting.
      3. It seems to provide a slightly stronger surface layer to grip the rifling if the alloy is a bit soft.

      Is it worth it? That’s something for everyone to decide for himself. I’m willing to shake-n-bake because it isn’t really much trouble, but I’m not going to be spraying it on unless I come up with a better reason.

    • #27573
      bangerjim
      Participant
      • Bronze
      • Posts: 1
      • Comments: 5
      • Overall: 6

      Larry – – – – thanks for the info!

      bangerjim

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2017 Goodsteel Forum. Designed by Covalent Designs, LLC.