464 30-30 Loads

[hombre243]

I misread what you wrote completely.

Y ou were saying that if you powder coat lead you can shoot it at twice the velocity without leading.

I thought you we're saying if you powder coat the lead bullet, it would go twice as fast as it did uncoated.

Who are you replying to? Me or Sullivan?

 

[hombre243]

deleted by hombre...

I think we got posts crossed at post 53.

Lyman Cast bullet handbook gives load recipes for 170 grain gas checked lead (uncoated) bullets that run about 2300 fps. These are 1-10 alloy, whatever that is. I think Rotometals.com is a good source for alloy of all types. They do not list the 10-1 alloy but they may call it something different. I doubt I will chance running lead that hot whether it is coated or not. I hate removing lead and copper from a barrel. But there is hope. Frog lube, EEZOX and hBn powder are good bore coatings and are said to help prevent leading and copper fouling. The hBn is mixed in solution with alcohol and then applied to the bore. I have not tried any of these yet. My rifles are still not shot in enough yet and i suspect are still a bit rough.

Anyway, please, when responding to a post, especially in a thread where everyone is invited to chime in, hit the reply button and that will plant the post you are answering, as well as your reply to the post.

Caddmann, in post 59 you replied:

"I misread what you wrote completely. You were saying that if you powder coat lead you can shoot it at twice the velocity without leading.I thought you we're saying if you powder coat the lead bullet, it would go twice as fast as it did uncoated."

What are you referring to? I didn't read that, and I didn't say it I don't think.

But let me say here, in order to shoot lead at 2x the velocity just by powder coating it you would have to be comparing a very slow bullet to one that is not really a lot faster. Lead bullets usually do not go that fast, and, comparing a 30 cal lead bullet to a 3000 or 4000 fps 22 cal bullet is really no comparison. These two are like lead and copper...2 different animals. (jaguar and elephant...know what I mean?)

I have read that 1000 fps and up is the velocity that plain lead or possibly a bit harder, like Lyman #2 alloy, will start to lead the barrel. Most loads are at least 1500 fps from a rifle. 1000 fps is a pistol velocity. But, as mentioned, Lyman's Cast Bullet Handbook lists loads that are over 2300 fps. That is almost factory jacketed bullet velocity from a lead gas checked bullet. In a 3030. Nice work if you can do it without leading the barrel. I think I will stick with jacketed. But if I do try lead, I will be using hard lead, one of the aforementioned coatings on the bullet and in the bore and a gas check. It just seems like a lot of extra money and work to try to get jacketed bullet performance out of a lead bullet.

If you are interested in shooting home cast lead, get Lyman's book. It is jammed with pretty much everything you want to know about shooting lead bullets.

 

[hombre243]

Have you chronographed them?

We had some issues with powder and static electricity and a number of rounds in my buddy's last batch were slow by 250 to 350 fps

I clocked from 1660 to 2009 in a matter of 50 rounds fired.

Not all had the same brass, but all had the same batches of lead, powder and primers.

Were all cases trimmed to the same length? If not, the crimp on the bullet may be different for each different length. If you did not crimp your bullets, because of different case thicknesses there may be more or less grip on the bullet and therefore will produce different pressures. As mentioned in a different thread, some cases are thicker material than others. I am sure this is true of commercial brass, as well as military brass. Different inside capacities cause differing pressures, thus your velocities will be different. Are all lead bullets exactly the same weight? Different weights give different pressures.

If you are using Hornady flat nose bullets, I take it you are using jacketed bullets. I have had extremely tiny weight variations on all quality jacketed bullets i have weighed, so I suspect the overall capacity of the case, possibly the seating depth may not be deep enough. or the crimp is not tight enough. Just try to not go deeper than the minimum OAL, but, if you are using lighter loads, you can go a bit deeper. Just the width of the cannelure can make a difference if you seat the bullet a bit farther down. It may be enough to stabilize your burn rate.

Static problems can be eliminated with Static Guard. It sells in gun shops that sell reloading items as well as in the laundry section at Wally World and Amazon.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Static-Guard-Fresh-Scent-Spray-5.5-oz/21092566

 

[hombre243]

Hi all,
My Sierra 125 gr, HP/FN bullets (#2020) came in today and I loaded some test loads and will fire em off as soon as weather is right for accuracy tests. These are R-P cases; Federal LR primers; IMR 4198 powder loaded thus: 10 each at: 25.5 gr; 26.0 gr; 26.5 gr; 27.0 gr and 27.5 gr. COAL is 2.420" and all cycle perfectly. I will use 5 of each of the lowest to sight in at 50 yards and compare groups, and if I can get on the longer range I will fire the rest at 100 yards. If that range is full I will pop them all off at 50 yards. Hopefully I will be able to choose a best load from these. I will post targets and a range report. This will be my first time out with the new rifle.

 

[hombre243]

I shot some of the 125s and I wasn't real impressed but the weather was nasty: cold and wet and windy. It could have been me but it is easier to blame the weather.
First time out to sight in I got about 1.25" groups at 50 yards. I will work on the loads and see if i can't improve the group size.

I ordered 300 150 gr Speer flat nosed bullets because the factory flat nosed loads did a pretty good job at the range. I was impressed with the shipping and service. I ordered yesterday morning and UPS Ground brought them about 10 minutes ago. Now I can load some testers and shoot tomorrow. Looks like I will be busy.

 

[CaddmannQ]

Sorry Hombre. I lost track of this thread.

I was replying to your post that starts "Powder coated lead is way different from 223 bullets that go over 3000 fps. "

Anyhow, please just ignore all that. I was confused about several things, because I am not a reloader, and don't know enough about it.

My buddy did the loads and he trimmed every case. We are using Sierra jacketed bullets with flat noses. They have a cannelure.
While there are slight variations in everything, his opinion was that we were trying to run loads too "soft" for that particular type of powder, causing erratic pressures.
I don't recall offhand which powder it was though.

I got him to use the anti-static wipes on the powder hopper & chute, which is working well.

 

[CaddmannQ]

I shot some of the 125s and I wasn't real impressed . . .

Our 170s were the most accurate. The 160's & 150's were noticeably less so. We didn't try anything lighter.

 

[hombre243]

Sorry Hombre. I lost track of this thread.

I was replying to your post that starts "Powder coated lead is way different from 223 bullets that go over 3000 fps. "

Anyhow, please just ignore all that. I was confused about several things, because I am not a reloader, and don't know enough about it.

My buddy did the loads and he trimmed every case. We are using Sierra jacketed bullets with flat noses. They have a cannelure.
While there are slight variations in everything, his opinion was that we were trying to run loads too "soft" for that particular type of powder, causing erratic pressures.
I don't recall offhand which powder it was though.

I got him to use the anti-static wipes on the powder hopper & chute, which is working well.

One thing I have found that did not make sense to me was the "Ballistic Coefficient", a number that is supposed to indicate positionally, which bullet will do better down range than another bullet. For instance, one bullet may have a BC of .186 which is the number given to a round nosed 150 gr. .308 bullet for a 30-30.. Another may have the BC of .255 which is the BC of a Speer 150 gr FNSP. These numbers may mean what they look like they mean, but, if you look at a Sierra bullet of the same design This is what you find:
.185 @ 2400 fps and above
.224 between 2400 and 1800 fps
.265 @ 1800 fps and below

Normally the BC gets higher with a higher velocity, as shown in the data for the Sierra 150gr SBT:
.380 @ 2600 fps and above
.368 between 2600 and 1800 fps
.360 @ 1800 fps and below

But the SPT data shows it gets better at slower speeds. I do not know why this is but it could be a reason your bullets are not performing well. The velocity may need to go up...OR you may need to look for a bullet that is designed to go slower. The 125 Sierras did not impress me but it was a crappy day so that could have been a big part of it. But the fact is, the smallest powder charge produced the best group. (25.5 gr IMR 4198) And that is in line with the data that said that this particular bullet does best at speeds of 1800 fps or less...and it is a Jacketed Soft Nosed Hollow Point.
.119 @ 2400 fps and above
.153 between 2400 and 1800 fps
.186 @1800 fps and below.

I got the Speer data in the Speer handbook. The Sierra data was copied and pasted from their bullet data online. https://www.sierrabullets.com/products/bullets/rifle.cfm

Something else I have noticed is that a good crimp, not a killer crimp but one just a bit more snug than the minimum will give better and more uniform pressure buildup and therefore will give the powder time to ignite more fully and give a more uniform push on the bullet.

About powders: There are only a few powders that will give a uniform burn if the charge is below the minimum. I realize 2 different manuals will have 2 different starting points. But those are the starting points, and seldom are the most efficient or accurate loads. I have found that midrange between hi and low is where you will start to see the groups shrink. If you just want plinker loads, use something like the Trail Boss or H4895 per the Hodgdon instructions I pasted in earlier posts. With those powder loads you could get some more acceptable performance even with the Jacketed bullets. Keep an eye on the BC. It may help you decide on a bullet proper for the job you want it to do. BTW, if you read Chuck Hawkes/Randy Wakeman pages, one of them I think Chuck, says there is no such thing as Ballistic Coefficient. But, whether there is or not, it is a number that can give you some info to go by when you want to choose a bullet.

If you are just shooting plinkers, try the powder coated bullets available from Missouri Bullet, or I think XTreme Bullets. Load them to factory advised velocities...under 1500 fps, and they should be good. If you load a bit hotter, make sure you check for lead. Some barrels can handle the extra velocities...some cannot.

I just got some of the Speer 150 gr SP/FN. The Federal factory rounds I shot Sunday seemed to do best so I will try to duplicate them. If the weather is nice I will chrono the loads. I have 2 lbs of Leverevolution powder to play with so hopefully I will have enough bullets and powder to find a good load combination.

 

[CaddmannQ]

Well I'm no expert on ballistics. In school we did the simplest sort of ballistics calculations. We built models and tested them in the Wind Tunnel and then we shot them off and took measurements to verify our calculations.

Right away discovered what I think is the factor you speak of: the coefficient of drag appeared to vary in Dynamic movement because it changes as the projectile stabilizes in flight.

If a projectile gets more stable the drag coefficient goes down and therefore the ballistic coefficient goes up.

If a projectile gets the less stable the drag coefficient goes up and the ballistic coefficient goes down.

Because different shapes and weights of Bullets exhibit different stability at different velocities, and because different guns whip different amounts as they send the projectile off, the flight of one bullet could be wildly different from a similar one.

I imagine it's quite likely that most bullets stabilize quickly in flight and then eventually de-stabilize before they hit the ground; but nothing I can see says it has to happen that way it's just a good bullet design will make it so.

By the way, in school we were testing rockets, not bullets, but all the major ballistic principles still apply.

 

[sullivan]

Learn something every day here. I had no idea that BC varied according to velocity. My Hornady Handbook Vol.2 really is out of date.

 

[hombre243]

Learn something every day here. I had no idea that BC varied according to velocity. My Hornady Handbook Vol.2 really is out of date.

I had no idea that jacketed bullets varied so much in BC. Some fly better going faster and some stabilize better at slow speeds. I figured that to be the case with bullets that are extremely short but the 125s and 150s mentioned are both good bullets. O well...I learned something too. In fact, the fact that using the 125s save me money in bullet cost as well as powder cost. Win-win. The 180s I got on sale were the best though. It is hard to not use them. My .308 showed me the other side of that coin.

 

[CaddmannQ]

Learn something every day here. I had no idea that BC varied according to velocity. My Hornady Handbook Vol.2 really is out of date.

We have to assign different numbers at different velocities, because the bullets behave differently at different velocities.

The bullet has no idea what its ballistic coefficient is. It's just a convenient number we assign so we can compare the performance of different bullets in common conditions. In uncommon conditions, they may make no sense, which is why the guy Hombre quoted said that there was no such thing as a ballistic coefficient. What he really meant IMO was there is no one single coefficient for any given bullet. There is an infinite family of related values, just a few of which cover what we need to know in order to load conventional firearm rounds that will work well.

When they made the first really fast planes, they made the nose needle sharp, thinking it would be faster, and they were right. It was faster right up to the point where it became unstable in flight and started vibrating to pieces.

Round nose designs flew slower at any given power, but they were stable at supersonic speeds while needles were not, so ultimately they went faster because they didn't yaw and bobble about at high speed.

 

[hombre243]

We have to assign different numbers at different velocities, because the bullets behave differently at different velocities.

The bullet has no idea what its ballistic coefficient is. It's just a convenient number we assign so we can compare the performance of different bullets in common conditions. In uncommon conditions, they may make no sense, which is why the guy Hombre quoted said that there was no such thing as a ballistic coefficient. What he really meant IMO was there is no one single coefficient for any given bullet. There is an infinite family of related values, just a few of which cover what we need to know in order to load conventional firearm rounds that will work well.

When they made the first really fast planes, they made the nose needle sharp, thinking it would be faster, and they were right. It was faster right up to the point where it became unstable in flight and started vibrating to pieces.

Round nose designs flew slower at any given power, but they were stable at supersonic speeds while needles were not, so ultimately they went faster because they didn't yaw and bobble about at high speed.

It just seemed odd that one round nose bullet of the same weight and basic design would have a higher BC at lower velocities, and another bullet has a higher BC at higher velocities. I guess it pays to not assume that all designs are created equal, nor do they all perform the same.

I am comfortable using the 125s at about 1800-2000 fps. On coyotes, but not on deer. But several of my friends have used the 125s on deer and hogs at higher velocity and had great success. Could be that BC relates as much to the rifling twist vs velocity of a bullet as it does to distance and velocity? I do know that not all barrels are alike even among the same model guns. Could be that is what Hawkes was really referring to: not all guns shoot the same so trying to assign a number to the bullet for comparison to other bullets is apples to oranges.

Best way to assign a value is to test many and choose your best result, and then go with what works best. Use your own eval number. To me that makes more sense than trying to give a bullet a specific proficiency rating when the rifle barrel itself will change the downrange performance of the bullet.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[nitesite]

Are we having fun yet?

Yep.

 

[hombre243]

Mine strings vertically a little. I credit the barrel band.

I went out 2 times now with the new rifle and I too am having troubles with stringing. But, sometimes they go high and sometimes low. As the barrel heats it seems to shoot high. But, the first target i used the first 2 shots were dead on, but then it started shooting low. I did heat it up pretty good at the last to see how bad it would do. But, I had one load that was 6 in a 1.5" stick on bullseye @ 50 yards. It was a 150 gr XTreme plated flat nose. Best group I have to date. 7 shots in an inch and a half. And they were all fired without letting the barrel rest or cool. I had ok groups with some TNT 125 hps but they are a pain to use. One in the tube and one in the chamber. But they were good shooters.

The 125 HPFNs did ok at lower velocity but all loads except that one would string. I don't really want to only shoot 1500-1600 fps loads but, That is faster than a 22 and many times heavier in weight. But I don't want to have to shoot at 22 distances.

CaddmannQ you mentioned the barrel band. I also saw somewhere it could be the mag tube cap screw. What should I look for? That is where I will start.

 

[CaddmannQ]

MIne has 2 Barrel bands & the mag tube cap screw as well.

I figured that on this style of gun it is just something that you live with.

I never expected it to be super accurate. That's not a Target gun.

But the first shot in a cold gun is very true. Even with my crappy eyesight I could drop a deer at a hundred yards with this gun.

Until I changed the sight arrangement that is. Now I gotta make it shoot straight again.

 

[sullivan]

hombre,
I believe it was me who introduced the "theory" about the magazine cap screw. I have changed my mind and do not think it responsible for vertical stringing. There is a special hole in the underside of the barrel that it screws into, without putting pressure on the barrel. That is, the hole is much bigger than the screw.

Sorry for misleading everyone

 

[hombre243]

hombre,
I believe it was me who introduced the "theory" about the magazine cap screw. I have changed my mind and do not think it responsible for vertical stringing. There is a special hole in the underside of the barrel that it screws into, without putting pressure on the barrel. That is, the hole is much bigger than the screw.

Sorry for misleading everyone

No problem here. That may eliminate one possible problem. I did some lookin online and found some things to look for but most of the hints and tips are for bench rest rifles. I still think there is something to the barrel bands squeezing the stock and constricting the barrel.

One interesting tip concerned the position of the butt which in turn has an effect on where the muzzle points. Has to do with recoil, balance etc. The main thing I got so far is that if the butt slopes downward, as does the Mossberg lever guns, (which is what makes open sights work so well with this and other lever guns, and which made it necessary for me to put a cheek pad on the buttstock.) then on recoil, the muzzle will jump, or will possibly be pointing upward causing the bullets to string up. The way to remedy this at the bench is to make sure the heel of the butt is secured in a good rear rest. This makes recoil of the rifle more of a rearward slide than a muzzle upward jump.

When I shot from the Gorilla Bag the muzzle jumped and the rifle torqued. The last 6 shots were fired nearly offhand only lightly resting the forearm on the bag if it touched it at all. I was shooting fairly fast to just finish the last of the ammo. That was the best group I shot all day and I had no idea why. Muzzle jump seems to be the issue. But, when the barrel got hot it was obviously causing inaccuracy problems. You can see the improvement in that group compared to the shots fired just minutes before. Other targets showed the same stringing. I tried to guess where the next shot would go and came close but the only consistency was that there was none. The one good group is the 6 shot clustered at the bottom of the target.

I have some cases tumbling so I will be loading up another hundred for the range. One thing for sure is that I will be ordering more XTreme 150 gr plated flat nose bullets. I might not like to shoot 1500-1600 fps loads but I do like the accuracy and the cost effectiveness of a lighter powder load and a cheaper bullet.

 

[hombre243]

Range report:

I shot the .30-30 Mossberg today 20 rounds through the chronometer with a revised formula. It seemed to work out pretty good & we had speeds varying from about 1990fps to 2000 with one or two wild ones hitting 1974 and a couple up to 2028 which is about what we were looking for....

I couldn't find the target pic you posted so I will post this here: On the target you posted were you shooting from a rest? I am thinking that these rifles, because of their lightweight barrel and front end design may be why we get stringing. The balance point is near or at where the fore end stock meets the receiver. When I placed the forend on the bag I got the stringing. That is forward of the balance point. Just like setting a rifle barrel directly on a hard surface, the barrel will jump. Now I am not sure it was from the heat.

I will let you know what I figure out when I try different shooting positions. I know I can't get a good group shooting offhand so I have to use a rest when I am sighting in. I think I will add a foam cushion to the forend, or at least something softer like a towel, and maybe a rear rest for the toe. I am sure the stringing has to do with the way I position the rifle on the rest. I am also going to try holding the forearm when I shoot and see if that makes a difference.

BUT, the first thing I want to test is how center of balance affects the barrel jump. I will position the forend on the rest nearer the receiver and see if that helps.

 

[hombre243]

Learn something every day here. I had no idea that BC varied according to velocity. My Hornady Handbook Vol.2 really is out of date.

Lyman 49 and Speer 13 list the BC of the bullets tested. I have not looked at them all but usually the bullet design specs are shown on the manuf's. sites so one can compare bullet designs before they plop down their cash...elsewhere. I didn't realize the data was available until I stumbled on to it.