Let's talk about bullets

[OliveOil]

Some time ago, I made a simple ogive profile-to-base checker for my .30's. Rather than indicating from one thin area around the circumference of the bullet, the contact area is the entire nose of the bullet. It makes you rethink the whole base-ogive measuring thing.

That's very interesting Al, but is based on the assumption that any bullet measured, coming from the same pointing tool / setting / and so on, shows the ABSOLUTE VERY same nose geometry/shape.

As the nose/ogive is assumed constantly / absolutely repetitive in dimensions, that ultra constant nose is therefore mandatory assumed with a variable position along bullet axis with reference to the bullet base, making therefore that "totally constant ogive / nose" closer or farther from the bullet base, therefore creating the B/O variation we are discussing about.

Turn it another way with my poor english.

Should we consider the bullet nose an absolute constant, the only B/O source for variation that remains is the bullet body length, considering the measurement tool own variation negligible.


Thus your previous words sounding like, shall I understood you well, "longer B/O = farther down sitted //// shorter B/O = less seated //// In any B/O case "seating" remains the very same".


Otherwise, considering any tiny variation in the nose shape itself [lube qty, stroke time, time spent in upper stoke position, ....], contact location in between bullet nose and your custom bullet "full nose sensor" will be randomly positioned thus introducing a supplemental variation in the measurement.

Anyway, you picked my curiosity. I do not have your material, but I'm gonna try some measurements using a caliper and my Davidson 6 -25 -30 noses to check some 30 cal bullets.


Now, as your measurement tip/trick " made you rethink the whole base-ogive measuring thing ", I will for sure appreciate much if you could share your conclusions here.

It's a nice BRC discussion we are having here.
Be well,
Olive.

 

[Al Nyhus]

Now, as your measurement tip/trick " made you rethink the whole base-ogive measuring thing ", I will for sure appreciate much if you could share your conclusions here.

It's a nice BRC discussion we are having here.
Be well,
Olive.

Good morning from sunny South Dakota.
Having done blind testing with bullets having up to .015 base-to-ogive variances from the pointing process (intentionally done for testing), I never saw any 'on target' accuracy loss.
My conclusion is that on the list of things that matter, normal base-to-ogive variances that occur during the point up process don't make the list for me.
Good shootin' -Al

 

[Pete Wass]

Good morning from sunny South Dakota.
Having done blind testing with bullets having up to .015 base-to-ogive variances from the pointing process (intentionally done for testing), I never saw any 'on target' accuracy loss.
My conclusion is that on the list of things that matter, normal base-to-ogive variances that occur during the point up process don't make the list for me.
Good shootin' -Al

I have done quite a bit of testing over the years and have generally found differences in group sizes and shapes in .001" increments of actual OAL"s of loaded rounds measured from where the bullet is very close to engaging the lands to the butt of the case and done it consistently. I have found that .oo6" in the lands is usually what shoots the best in the .30's I have played with over the years. I have used it as my standard for a number of years because I can open the bolt on a live round without pulling a bullet. I use .02 increments of powder charges carefully weighed on laboratory balance. I have done test after test that, to me, proves the time I spend doing this is worth doing. If one varies the seating depth .001, group sizes and shapes will corespond, otherwise, why bother even fooling with seating depths?

We are after a few crumbs on the table I realize. I know a lot of matches are won by throwing charges and jamming hard so that seating depth variations are moot in that case yet folks that don't jam hard talk about adjusting seating depth or neck tension to improve accuracy.

I can't show anyone a lot of matches I have won because of my diligence. I know my rifles are shooting the best they can shoot when they go to the line. I, on the other hand, in my 80th year, miss a lot of the subtilties of shooting so that my work is often in vain. When I do win one by 3 or 4 points, there is some satisfaction in knowing I have presented my best effort and it paid off. I could see a condition that repeated that day and I was patient enough to wait for it. My wins in the past several years have come in really nasty conditions and I think a really well tuned gun is a big part of coping with the switchy winds.

Also, more and more folks are weighing charges and paying attention to exact AOL's. The LD lads are doing a lot of this stuff and testing it in big strings so that there is pretty good validity in their results. There hasn't been much, if any of this type of published testing in the "Point Blank" segment in recent memory , if ever. Those competing seem to run mostly in belief. Some die hards still throw charges. I decided a long time ago the guy with good equipment and the best memory is gonna win most of the time.

 

[Al Nyhus]

I have done quite a bit of testing over the years and have generally found differences in group sizes and shapes in .001" increments of actual OAL"s of loaded rounds measured from where the bullet is very close to engaging the lands to the butt of the case and done it consistently.

Pete, tell me more about your testing proceedure.

 

[mwezell]

Pete, tell me more about your testing proceedure.

Yes, I think the magic spot might not be where we commonly measure but I'm not sure enough to preach on here. The area just above the core and below the actual ogive seems to be a hollow area that may be susceptible to inconsistencies. But hey, some bullets have lead above that point too so it's not written in stone anywhere...that I know about. Lol!

 

[Pete Wass]

Pete, tell me more about your testing proceedure.

I'll send you a PM Al.

 

[Pete Wass]

For the 7-10 ogive bullets, the VLD style seater stems are a good place to start if using a Wilson style seater. Lapping as suggested by Randy should be S.O.P. for consistency.

Pete...are you using Wilson style seaters?

No, generally I hate Wilson tools except for their new threaded type S dies. They seem to be first rate. I have been using Forster Ultra seaters for 20 years I'd guess. A nice thing about Forster is they have parts available and how I was able to find a seating stem to my liking. I just guessed on what size might work and got lucky I guess

 

[Pete Wass]

Some time ago, I made a simple ogive profile-to-base checker for my .30's. Rather than indicating from one thin area around the circumference of the bullet, the contact area is the entire nose of the bullet. It makes you rethink the whole base-ogive measuring thing.

The way I approach loading goes like this. I know the bullet is going to engage the lands at the beginning of the ogive so my seater stems touch the bullets in approximately the same area. I measure and adjust every round I load with a Stoney Point comparator on a dial caliper. The comparator's hole rim touches the bullet in approximately the same area as the stem. By using that area on the bullet to measure for OAL's one can't go too far wrong, from my experience, at least. I'm really only concerned in where the bullet will engage the lands. I have never had good results, to my satisfaction, using seater stems that tough the bullet near the tip. This appears to be where the variations come in. Lots of people, friends, use standard Wilson hand press dies and shoot pretty well. I have always wondered if perhaps they might shoot even better the way I go at things, People come to believe in things, practices and they become the right way. I've never been one of those persons. I've always tried to find better ways to do things. It's difficult to convince anyone of anything they can't see as a possibility. I know there are others out there who see things the way I do and I have had exchanges with them on here even. It's one of those against the grain things. Why buck someone who refuses to even look? It is impossible to make ammo that is too good so we keep trying, nevertheless.

I had a conversation with an Engineer @ Forster a number of years ago regarding stems and the variability. He told me they were aware of the situation but decided not to change what they were doing because of tooling costs, etc. That was gratifying so I decided to do it myself. At least he admitted he- they knew.

 

[Pete Wass]

Pete. First use a dial caliper. The digital just messes with you. #2 If I remember you use factory bullets maybe. The ogive is going to very. #3 If the core is too big than lead would come through Hollow point. I have seem this on custom bullets. Won't say who. #4 The bullets I make 7 and fat 8 ogive. Seated with the Wilson die. Seat the same. The stem contacts closer to the point. The Sinclair ogive nut gives a good measurement. And is around the ogive. #5 The lands of a barrel and the ogive nut are 2 different things. Close but different.
And the old guy says don't worry about the point, just shoot em.

I DO use a dial caliper. I have neve trusted electronic calipers. I have been using a Swiss "Brown & Dull" lately

 

[Pete Wass]

If the bullets are from the same point up die, any base-to-ogive differences only change how much bullet is in the case neck. -Al

I don't point up bullets or have any point up di so for my part, I'm stuck with what I purchase. Yes, there is going to more or less body in the case, perhaps but that isn't the issue. Its from where the body begins to taper to the tip of the taper where variations occur the most and why using a stem that touches the bullets out near the tip causes the trouble. People who jam hard and adjust powder or jump a lot never notice. But for my purposes, not wanting to jump and wanting to be able to open my bolt on a loaded round without sticking a bullet in the lands, I want absolute control or as near to perfection I can get.

It's not been my experience that bullets ever are exact in lots. A friend once made me some on a machine in a factory that measured exactly the same. I asked him how he did it. He said he took them out of the run after the machine had made a few. I guess its like not taking the first liquor out of the still sort of thing. I still have them. He made a few thou and asked me to hand them out to shooter friends. I did and they were liked. He left the company and we never got any more of them.

 

[Al Nyhus]

I don't point up bullets or have any point up di so for my part, I'm stuck with what I purchase.

Pete, the point up die I mentioned is the die used in making the bullets. The after market dies sold for 'pointing' bullets are a different animal and can potentially open the door for what's termed in the computer world as 'undocumented features'.

I just finished pointing 1,000 .30 cal. 117's on 1.00" jackets. Base to ogive is .383 +/- .001 for a .002 possible total variance. There's a lot more to this and the majority of it is beyond the control of the bullet maker. For instance, if I use a different lot number of jackets, I may or may not get the same .383 b-o number as these. And trying to chase a specific b-o number across different jacket lots
is a guaranteed road to raise issues you don't want to deal with.

My 2 cents for what it's worth. -Al

 

[dmort]

I DO use a dial caliper. I have neve trusted electronic calipers. I have been using a Swiss "Brown & Dull" lately

I have a Swiss B&S. A fine tool.

 

[Pete Wass]

Pete, the point up die I mentioned is the die used in making the bullets. The after market dies sold for 'pointing' bullets are a different animal and can potentially open the door for what's termed in the computer world as 'undocumented features'.

I just finished pointing 1,000 .30 cal. 117's on 1.00" jackets. Base to ogive is .383 +/- .001 for a .002 possible total variance. There's a lot more to this and the majority of it is beyond the control of the bullet maker. For instance, if I use a different lot number of jackets, I may or may not get the same .383 b-o number as these. And trying to chase a specific b-o number across different jacket lots
is a guaranteed road toaissues you don't want to deal with.

My 2 cents for what it's worth. -Al

I really don't have an issue with bullet makers. They do the best they can with what they have. I have found a way to deal with it and do. I have never had any interest in making bullets or shooting beyond 300 yards. That would make me an odd duck today .