Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Had a question about boolit size, throat and bore match with revolvers.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bakerton, WV
    Posts
    467

    Default Had a question about boolit size, throat and bore match with revolvers.

    The bore should be slugged to find groove to groove diameter. The throats must be a little larger from .005" but even if larger no harm is done. I will talk about my .44 SBH. Groove is .430" and throats are .4324".
    Some will say you MUST make boolits to a snug fit to the throats but this is not true in most cases. I have no problems shooting .430" boolits or bullets. I normally use .432" but it depends on the mold and who made it. You just never want to shoot smaller boolits then groove size.
    What is more important is the alloy and nose shape of the boolit. You want a truncated cone or RNFP so the nose pulls the cylinder in line with the bore, something a Keith can not do. You need a little play in the cylinder and on the pin, nothing super tight works unless the gun is PERFECT, hard to find.
    Alloy must be hard or tough enough to take the rifling without skidding past the base band. Hard lead is great with a PB but if you soften lead a little, you need a gas check to arrest skid. Skid past the base opens gas channels and leads barrels.
    Hard, brittle lube is no good, some will break out of grooves but any left will toss a boolit out of balance. I never liked Alox in any form, it burns in the bore and leaves ash. I only use Felix lube, soft and sticky.
    The faster the powder, the harder the lead needs to be to prevent initial high pressure slump and skid. Unique, 231 and Bullseye can need as hard as 28 to 30 BHN.
    I use 22 to 25 BHN with 296 and that is water dropped WW metal or an alloy with a little more antimony and tin added but still water dropped. Try to make lead act like your jacketed instead of trying to make soft lead work, it will not. Only BP can use soft lead.
    A recovered boolit should look exactly like the one you loaded except for land and groove marks.
    Anyway, as long as you have a boolit that is groove size to as much as .003" over, they will work but when you destroy grease grooves before or after entering the rifling, you will have a problem. Same as slumping a boolit in the forcing cone that removes the grease and the grooves before entering the rifling. Maintain boolit integrity from the chamber to the target.
    Don't worry about a few thousandths at the throats, worry about what the powder and pressure does to the boolit. Never, ever believe in the "bump up" thing.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,802

    Default

    Thanks, bfrshooter:

    Would you elaborate on the "bump up" thing.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bakerton, WV
    Posts
    467

    Default

    This was common long ago when bores and throats were over size. They came up with hollow base boolits to expand into the rifling. It just does not give accuracy. It is still common today when a boolit does not fit right and soft lead is shot so it expands to seal the bore. It does not even work with BP. I worked with many .58 cal muskets that would not keep a Minie' ball on paper at 50 yards. By lapping the mold for a good fit to the rifling, we could hit gongs at 200 meters.
    Any boolit that does not fit and made soft will slump, even far enough to compress grease grooves away and change boolit shape so far it no longer looks like what you loaded.
    You are better off making a boolit fit the gun and using a tough enough boolit to take the rifling without skidding past the base band in a revolver.
    Soft can be shot in a lot of guns like muzzle loaders, etc but fit still works better then bumping up a boolit. Fit the boolit or ball to the gun first and do not try to make pressure fit it.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bfrshooter View Post
    The faster the powder, the harder the lead needs to be to prevent initial high pressure slump and skid.
    I dunno how hard these bullets. I buy them from someone else. 44 cal. 240 grain, SWC, Bevel Base.

    I've been shooting them with H or IMR 4227, I've used some H 110, and some Unique, and I've never noticed more than a tiny bit of leading before.

    I tried 9.5 grains of Universal, and got LOTs of leading, then 10.5 grains, the Max Load, and still got LOTs of leading.

    Is it possible that the Universal is wrong for these bullets, and whatever combination of diameters I have in my S&W Mdl 29, 44 Mag.?

    I'm just asking if it's POSSIBLE. I know I've not given info on the gun, etc. I've not paid any attention to the throat, and barrel diameters, the forcing cone, or anything else.

    I'll be shooting some of my 4227 loads next, and anything else, I've loaded for these bullets to double check, if the Universal is the only thing that gave me leading.

    Thanks
    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bakerton, WV
    Posts
    467

    Default

    I never had luck with a Bevel base in any gun and do not get accuracy with any Keith. Your boolits are either too soft or under size for the fast powder. It reaches full pressure too quick and can leak around the boolit and gas cut it or just plain distort the boolit.
    But then some bought boolits are too hard and if under size, they can still cause leading.
    The slow powders work better because they start the boolit and then increase pressure as the boolit goes down the bore.
    Watch 4227 because it is heat sensitive in the .44. It is very accurate if the gun and rounds are kept cool. 296 is best for the BH, SBH, SRH and S&W but H110 works best in the RH. Goofy, I know!
    I use a standard Fed 150 primer.
    The boolit nose shape steers the boolit into the cone and will align the chamber as long as there is a little play. The Keith depends on the little shoulder like a wad cutter and the nose does nothing. This shoulder can distort and not allow chamber alignment so you can have gas squirt along the boolit. The bevel base will not create a seal. Most leading is mechanical and easy to care for but when hot, high pressure gas cuts lead, it can get nasty.
    Lead will not melt from powder heat but gas pressure can erode it. You must keep all the gas behind the boolit.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,802

    Default

    Thanks Again, bfrshooter.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    stuck at 7500' in CO for now
    Posts
    50

    Default Interesting posts

    bfrshooter:

    "It is very accurate if the gun and rounds are kept cool. 296 is best for the BH, SBH, SRH and S&W but H110 works best in the RH. Goofy, I know"

    Interesting in that WW 296 and Hodgdon H 110 are the same powders the only difference being the different lot numbers and the manufacturing tolerances in the lots themselves. Are you using different primers for each powder? On reread you indicate that you use Federal 150 primers so that would not cause a difference. Do you have a older lot of one or the other powder? For a given weight of bullet do you use more or less powder in the RH than the others? Is the velocity the same for a given length barrel? Given that you have enough of the same barrel lengths to test.

    Smitty of the North:

    "I tried 9.5 grains of Universal, and got LOTs of leading, then 10.5 grains, the Max Load, and still got LOTs of leading."

    Try 8.0 grains of Universal for about 1000 fps or so & see if your leading goes away. You might also try WW 231 or Hodgdon HP-38 (which are also the same powder) if you are looking for an accuracy load in the same velocity class as the Universal. About the same weight with a touch more of the 231. I had the privilege of being in the Wasilla and Anchorage Sportsman Warehouse about a week ago. One of them had the WW231 in stock which was interesting in that I can't find it in my location. Might be worth a try in your application.

    Cary

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bakerton, WV
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carysguns View Post
    bfrshooter:

    "It is very accurate if the gun and rounds are kept cool. 296 is best for the BH, SBH, SRH and S&W but H110 works best in the RH. Goofy, I know"

    Interesting in that WW 296 and Hodgdon H 110 are the same powders the only difference being the different lot numbers and the manufacturing tolerances in the lots themselves. Are you using different primers for each powder? On reread you indicate that you use Federal 150 primers so that would not cause a difference. Do you have a older lot of one or the other powder? For a given weight of bullet do you use more or less powder in the RH than the others? Is the velocity the same for a given length barrel? Given that you have enough of the same barrel lengths to test.

    Smitty of the North:

    "I tried 9.5 grains of Universal, and got LOTs of leading, then 10.5 grains, the Max Load, and still got LOTs of leading."

    Try 8.0 grains of Universal for about 1000 fps or so & see if your leading goes away. You might also try WW 231 or Hodgdon HP-38 (which are also the same powder) if you are looking for an accuracy load in the same velocity class as the Universal. About the same weight with a touch more of the 231. I had the privilege of being in the Wasilla and Anchorage Sportsman Warehouse about a week ago. One of them had the WW231 in stock which was interesting in that I can't find it in my location. Might be worth a try in your application.

    Cary
    Since Hodgdon now handles all powder, I don't know if H110 and 296 are the same. I suspect there is still a difference.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carysguns View Post
    bfrshooter:

    Smitty of the North:

    "I tried 9.5 grains of Universal, and got LOTs of leading, then 10.5 grains, the Max Load, and still got LOTs of leading."

    Try 8.0 grains of Universal for about 1000 fps or so & see if your leading goes away.
    Cary
    I could try that. I was using Universal, because I got it somewhere, somehow, and figgered I use it up.

    The loads are practice loads, and were spose to be fun loads, too, but it's not fun getting rid of the leading.

    Oh Sheet, I just discovered, I have a Nother Box of the 9.5 grain loads.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    stuck at 7500' in CO for now
    Posts
    50

    Default History

    Quote Originally Posted by bfrshooter View Post
    Since Hodgdon now handles all powder, I don't know if H110 and 296 are the same. I suspect there is still a difference.
    Bfrshooter:

    FYI: Back in the days when Hodgdon first started out they would buy surplus powder and repackage it with their brand. To speed things along after a while Olin using the Winchester brand developed a powder they called WW 296. Hodgdon who never made anything they didn't contract from a outside source or buy surplus sold a powder they labeled H 110. They both had the same size, shape, burn rate, and flame temp. Some times one would be a little slower or faster than the other. Just depended on how they were mixed up. In an interesting twist of fate Winchester now doesn't have a source to manufacture their powder so they contracted with Hodgdon to provide their powders. If you dig around on the Winchester website they will tell you that Hodgdon provides the powder. Unless they have changed again Hodgdon contracts with St. Marks Powders for WW 296 and H 110 which are the same powder except for the lot numbers and interestingly enough WW tends to run $2.00 per pound more than Hodgdon.

    At one time H 110 was different than WW 296. H 110 started out life as a military propellant for the .30 M1 carbine. It was the best there was for that purpose. The surplus ran out so Hodgdon needed another source. WW 296 was developed about 1973. Winchester was the original source for that military propellant (interesting how the military calls it a propellant which it is, where most people call it a powder which it is not & generally has a explosive back round). So guess where the next H 110 came from. Hence my question if you had some old stock.

    I would question everything I have indicated to be true. It is good that you do. The best way to verify what I have stated to be true about H 110 and WW 296 being the same is to call Hodgdon. They will tell you that they are the same powder. The last person I pushed down that road was very happy to find out that WW 231 and HP-38 were the same also. He was a 45 shooter & was running out of WW 231. There was none to be found. HP-38 was available which got him back in business. Not always true but happens more than most people realize.

    Good luck with your shooting.

    Cary

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bakerton, WV
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Very true and it was the LOTS that separated WW from Hodgdon. H110 always seemed to need 1/2 gr more then 296. Lots were controlled for package delivery to each company.
    It still never solved why H110 worked better in the RH then 296. It never explained why 296 worked better in the BH, SBH, S&W, etc.
    Same powder but can anyone explain how a small difference in burn rate can change accuracy? It is there and I will not buy H110 for any of my revolvers unless I buy a RH.

  12. #12
    Member Bullelkklr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    Interesting in that the BPCR competitors almost all shoot very soft lead or pure lead. They don't seem to lead up at the speeds they shoot. Is this different than pistols? Their bullets almost all are completely disformed when they hit dirt...I have picked up many many of them. Maybe they are shooting slower? I know a couple competitors that have almost zero leading with these soft bullets.

    Reason I ask is that I had planned to pour up a bunch of soft boolits this winter for plinking and fun rounds. No use in using up my hard stuff if I don't have to. All of my .45LC "bear" loads (around 1250fps in 330 grain Brooks Mould) I make hard and I have seen zero leading so far....
    Last edited by Bullelkklr; 10-12-2010 at 13:20. Reason: spelling error

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bakerton, WV
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Yes, soft is fine for BP, in fact it is best. It is the smokeless powders that reach peak pressure too fast that governs boolit hardness. Some powders peak when the boolit has hardly left the brass. It is not the amount of pressure, it is when it hits the boolit. Some powders do not punch the boolit but just push it faster and faster as it goes down the bore.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •