Time to make the donuts....

[liljoe]

I don't Tim. I have talked with several guys about them last season. After getting into building these squirt dies that is the question everyone asks.
I talked with a very knowledgeable machinist last year and he said that he has made them on a CNC he owns but doesn't have any interest in making any.
Joe

 

[jcarpen]

the jacket and place a "nub" (about 3/16 -1/8th" long) of your lead- wire between the bullet base and the ram-punch face and apply the pressure . . . closes the me'plat, and bu

T

 

[AlNyhus]

Some interesting dynamics between materials are being seen with our project.

Jackets from my excellent Blackmon steel core seating die run right at .0002 smaller than Randy's that are done on his carbide core seater dies.

When the .0003  smaller cored jackets are pointed in the carbide point die, they make a .00015-ish larger diameter bullet than do jackets core seated in Randy's carbide core seating dies.

The pressure ring on the steel die core seated jackets is absolutely a knife edge with no discernable radius at the edge. Now...I like that. A lot.

But here it gets more interesting.

If you let those bullets sit for about 48 hours, the sharp edge 'relaxes'....for lack of a better term....and exhibits the normal slight radius like you would expect to see from a bullet right out of the point die. There is no measurable size change.

Randy has some 'thunks' about this and is draggin' me head first into the world of frictional dynamics on the x, y and z planes and material flow properties.

My I.Q. level seems to spike after a trip to BIB World Headquarters. Unfortunately, when I cross the border back into 'The Forbidden Zone' aka South Dakota....it seems to backslide.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[D Coots]

Al, you and Randy are more into PROVING your theories in a real world with physical results you can actually see when testing.... .

Too many theorists have things they can only speak about......

Thanks

 

[AlNyhus]

Al, you and Randy are more into PROVING your theories in a real world with physical results you can actually see when testing.... .

Too many theorists have things they can only speak about......

Thanks

As you know Dave...sometimes we should all just do stuff and see what shakes out.

"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." -Yogi Berra

 

[Tim Singleton]

Some interesting dynamics between materials are being seen with our project.

Jackets from my excellent Blackmon steel core seating die run right at .0002 smaller than do Randy's that are done on his carbide core seater dies.

When the .0002  smaller cored jackets are pointed in the carbide point die, they make a .0001 larger diameter bullet than do jackets core seated in Randy's carbide core seating dies.

The pressure ring on the steel die core seated jackets is absolutely a knife edge with no discernable radius at the edge. Now...I like that. A lot. But here it gets more interesting.

If you let those bullets sit for about 48 hours, the sharp edge 'relaxes'....for lack of a better term....and exhibits the normal slight radius like you would expect to see from a bullet right out of the point die.

Randy has some 'thunks' about this and is draggin' me head first into the world of frictional dynamics on the x, y and z planes and material flow properties.

My I.Q. level seems to spike after a trip to BIB World Headquarters. Unfortunately, when I cross the border back into 'The Forbidden Zone' aka South Dakota....it seems to backslide.

Good shootin' -Al

Al,
Not that this is the case for you on the sharp edge in the jacket at the lead line
I have seen this at times a perfect matching punch leaves a sharper edge than a little looser one. Or a punch with a slight chamfer
All that to say. It may be the punch difference between the two setups

 

[RGRobinett]

I'll add that following pointing, Al's bullets were EXTREMELY difficult to eject from the die, while "my" bullets ejected normally. Even slathered heavily with excessive lube, Al's cored bullets put the K.O. pin spine, "to the test"! As stated, the heels appeared, "shaving sharp", thus, were trying to dig/cut into the die walls - RESISTING ejection!!

Via my memory and Mitutoyo (digital) & Starrett (vernier) micrometers (and we used both), Al's 'cored' diameter was 0.3078", while those from my core-seat die were/are 0.3081", or, 0.0003" difference in shank diameter. Following pointing, the shank Dia. of my bullets is in the 0.3083-0.30835" range: expanding up 0.0002, while Al's pointed [shank] Dias. ran 0.30845-0.30850": expanded-up about 0.0006", or three times greater outward expansion . . . it appears that this IS a place where 1/10,000Ths of an inch DO matter!

Skimming through the memory bank . . . AND some early "90''s" notes, it appears that we "jumped to the/a [correct] conclusion": the SHARP heel is likely the result of the more rapidly expanding jacket releasing the core, which slides slightly forward before the jacket 'catches up', thus, the malleable jacket accommodates forming the SHARP heel prior to re-mating with the core . . . in short, the EXPANDING-UP principal, put to the test!

A perusal of comments by George Ulrich (maker of GREAT dies), in a resurrected Stephen Perry thread, reveals George's questioning - relative to carbide dies - the expanding-up principal . . . damn, George may be correct AGAIN! Not that expanding-up is bad, but as in all things, there's a limit: several of my smaller caliber carbide die sets, executed very competent makers (Niemi, Ulrich, Detsch), swage-up only 0.0001" and some, not at all! Upon receiving one set, of the latter type, the die maker informed me that for that caliber, compared to tool steel, "carbide is too slippery to assure proper expanding-up" . . . and, though, at the time, I was not endeared, that die-set makes GREAT bullets. RG

 

[Tim Singleton]

I'll add that following pointing, Al's bullets were EXTREMELY difficult to eject from the die, while "my" bullets ejected normally. Even slathered heavily with excessive lube, Al's cored bullets put the K.O. pin spine, "to the test"! As stated, the heels appeared, "shaving sharp", thus, were trying to dig/cut into the die walls - RESISTING ejection!!

Via my memory and Mitutoyo (digital) & Starrett (vernier) micrometers (and we used both), Al's 'cored' diameter was 0.3078", while those from my core-seat die were/are 0.3081", or, 0.0003" difference in shank diameter. Following pointing, the shank Dia. of my bullets is in the 0.3083-0.30835" range: expanding up 0.0002, while Al's pointed [shank] Dias. ran 0.30845-0.30850": expanded-up about 0.0006", or three times greater outward expansion . . . it appears that this IS a place where 1/10,000Ths of an inch DO matter!

Skimming through the memory bank . . . AND some early "90''s" notes, it appears that we "jumped to the/a [correct] conclusion": the SHARP heel is likely the result of the more rapidly expanding jacket releasing the core, which slides slightly forward before the jacket 'catches up', thus, the malleable jacket accommodates forming the SHARP heel prior to re-mating with the core . . . in short, the EXPANDING-UP principal, put to the test!

A perusal of comments by George Ulrich (maker of GREAT dies), in the resurrected Stephen Perry thread, reveals George's questioning - relative to carbide dies - the expanding-up principal . . . damn, George may be correct AGAIN! Not that expanding-up is bad, but as in all things, there's a limit: several of my smaller caliber carbide die sets, executed very competent makers (Niemi, Ulrich, Detsch), swage-up only 0.0001" and some, not at all! Upon receiving one set, of the latter type, the die maker informed me that fro that caliber, compared to tool steel, "carbide is too slippery to assure proper expanding-up" . . . and, though, at the time, I was not endeared, that die-set makes GREAT bullets. RG

On the slippery carbide

Was the tool steel bullet OAL shorter than the carbide?
I guess you add some much more lube on the steel.
This probably not a good comparison question

 

[Mulligan]

I'll add that following pointing, Al's bullets were EXTREMELY difficult to eject from the die, while "my" bullets ejected normally. Even slathered heavily with excessive lube, Al's cored bullets put the K.O. pin spine, "to the test"! As stated, the heels appeared, "shaving sharp", thus, were trying to dig/cut into the die walls - RESISTING ejection!!

Via my memory and Mitutoyo (digital) & Starrett (vernier) micrometers (and we used both), Al's 'cored' diameter was 0.3078", while those from my core-seat die were/are 0.3081", or, 0.0003" difference in shank diameter. Following pointing, the shank Dia. of my bullets is in the 0.3083-0.30835" range: expanding up 0.0002, while Al's pointed [shank] Dias. ran 0.30845-0.30850": expanded-up about 0.0006", or three times greater outward expansion . . . it appears that this IS a place where 1/10,000Ths of an inch DO matter!

Skimming through the memory bank . . . AND some early "90''s" notes, it appears that we "jumped to the/a [correct] conclusion": the SHARP heel is likely the result of the more rapidly expanding jacket releasing the core, which slides slightly forward before the jacket 'catches up', thus, the malleable jacket accommodates forming the SHARP heel prior to re-mating with the core . . . in short, the EXPANDING-UP principal, put to the test!

A perusal of comments by George Ulrich (maker of GREAT dies), in a resurrected Stephen Perry thread, reveals George's questioning - relative to carbide dies - the expanding-up principal . . . damn, George may be correct AGAIN! Not that expanding-up is bad, but as in all things, there's a limit: several of my smaller caliber carbide die sets, executed very competent makers (Niemi, Ulrich, Detsch), swage-up only 0.0001" and some, not at all! Upon receiving one set, of the latter type, the die maker informed me that for that caliber, compared to tool steel, "carbide is too slippery to assure proper expanding-up" . . . and, though, at the time, I was not endeared, that die-set makes GREAT bullets. RG

I've read this a couple of times, I think I will go ponder now and come back to it again a bit later. My head hurts.

CW

 

[jackieschmidt]

Randy, I tried Speedy’s “point up to” method on my 30, and I could not get my finished bullets shank to measure the .3082 that I want. The way I describe the “point up” method is the core seated jacket actually measures about .0002 smaller than the finished bullet. I think the theory behind this is the lead core, ehich is “dead” remains that way and the jacket, which will shrink a very small amount after point up, will continue to grip the core.
The only way I can get my bullets at exactly .3082 shank diameter is to seat the cores to where the core seated jacket measures exactly the same as the finished bullet. This size is arrived at when I use your method of stretching the jacket between .005 and .007 in length when it first starts to grow after expanding to the dies diameter.

The seated cores do have some “feel” coming out of the core seat die, but nothing extravagant. Even after a few days, they do not shrink in length or diameter, they come out of the Core Seat Die at .3082 and seem to stay there. I am using an infinitesimal small amount of lube during the core seat. I use a predetermined amount during point up that allows the bullets to measure the .3082 shank diameter I want combined with a reasonable amount of extraction from the point up die.

I feel like I might be doing something wrong.

 

[RGRobinett]

Randy, I tried Speedy’s “point up to” method on my 30, and I could not get my finished bullets shank to measure the .3082 that I want. The way I describe the “point up” method is the core seated jacket actually measures about .0002 smaller than the finished bullet. I think the theory behind this is the lead core, ehich is “dead” remains that way and the jacket, which will shrink a very small amount after point up, will continue to grip the core.
The only way I can get my bullets at exactly .3082 shank diameter is to seat the cores to where the core seated jacket measures exactly the same as the finished bullet. This size is arrived at when I use your method of stretching the jacket between .005 and .007 in length when it first starts to grow after expanding to the dies diameter.

The seated cores do have some “feel” coming out of the core seat die, but nothing extravagant. Even after a few days, they do not shrink in length or diameter, they come out of the Core Seat Die at .3082 and seem to stay there. I am using an infinitesimal small amount of lube during the core seat. I use a predetermined amount during point up that allows the bullets to measure the .3082 shank diameter I want combined with a reasonable amount of extraction from the point up die.

I feel like I might be doing something wrong.

When I bought my first set of carbide dies (.224 Rorschach), for core-seating pressure, the original owner instructed me to apply pressure until the jacket, "blew" (pinched off) and back off about 1/8Th turn! Rounded-up, in decimals, for a 14 TPI die body, this would be about 0.009" - I didn't 'cotton to' that awful sound at "blow-off"!

Back on topic. When I got home with the Rorschach dies, I began measuring length and diameter to determine core-seat pressure, as that seemed logical and repeatable: never has this method failed to make excellent bullets. That said, Al might support the notion that I can get pretty close by "feel", however, measurements are a sure thing . . . tactile judgement is the alert button that something wasn't the same with a particular bullet. On the tours I have enjoyed, at mass producers, there have been no mechanism(s) to sort out a "funny feeler". A facet that a hand maker can and should employ!

For core seating, I have always used the add pressure until the shortest length, then add more pressure until the jackets lengthen 0.002-0.003" - not 0.005-0.007" - which is likely close to pinching the jacket off above the core!! The 0.001-0.002" stretch usually coincides with a satisfyingly 'straight' shank: same diameter at, and from, the core top, to just at the solid base, which, until pointing, will remain a couple of 1/10,000ths" smaller than the shank diameter.

Typically, when using J4 jackets, with the Niemi [.30 Cal.] dies, the cored jackets eject at 0.3083, and after a couple of days, 'resting', shrink back to about .3081". Then, via the point dies, the shanks run at .3083"- .30835" and the pressure-ring, will from jacket Lot-to-Lot, will be whatever it wants to be, within a range of .3084" to .3088", with the vast majority of Lots being .3086-.3087". The die maker can make a certain/specified shank diameter, but the pressure-ring [Dia.] is a unpredictable variable. RG

P.S. Edited my comment (red) for clarity.

 

[jackieschmidt]

I might back my core seat up a little. And see if the diameter out of the die is still the same.

like you, I have heard of those who take it down untill they pop a jacket, then backi it off a little. That seems absurd, At a Nationals, a shooter who made his own bullets was (it seemed like), bragging that he had broke several presses. That’s insane.

 

[D Coots]

Haven't seen anything about concentricity playing a part in the process?

 

[AlNyhus]

Another interesting facet to the discussion of 'expanding up'. When my core seated jackets from the Blackmon steel die are pointed in the Blackmon point die, they have virtually identical 'expand up' dimensions as when they get pointed in the Robinett carbide die. They show none of the razor edge at the base.

Is it possible/probable that steel dies can tolerate a bit more 'expand up' than carbide due to the frictional differences between the two materials? Or possibly the extra lube requirements of steel dies play a part? Both? Are there other things to be considered?

The Blackmon dies make great performing bullets in multiple barrels in weights from 117 to 125.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[jackieschmidt]

Haven't seen anything about concentricity playing a part in the process?

Dave, are you speaking of the wall thickness variations in jackets, or the true roundness of the finished bullet?

 

[Fuj]

Is it possible/probable that steel dies can tolerate a bit more 'expand up' than carbide due to the frictional differences between the two materials? Or possibly the extra lube requirements of steel dies play a part? Both? Are there other things to be considered?

From a tool makers perspective, and a related problem that was solved
with lubricant. We were working on cup deep draw dies for a GE Loco
fueling system. Problem we were having in the test draws was minor
fracturing on the base coupled with the cups being oval. Ring and
punch were made from D-2. Engineering was going to have us pull
everything for another inspection when a decision was made to try
several formulations of drawing oils first. Bottom line, we ended up
using a water and plant based drawing compound over a dino based.
Turned out that the plant based compound could be used at a much
thinner tolerance. What had everyone scratching there head was, water
based emulsions were never deemed viable for a deep draw......Considering
bullet swaging itself is not a deep draw, I would get to do experimenting
non traditional lubes. We made a wire drawing die where believe it or not,
a powder is used and not a liquid. One other area to look at is the trapping
of any bit of air. Air will compress, liquids will not. Will a die having too tight
of a tolerance and have a venting problem.....?? Jackie mentioned someone
claiming to trash presses ?? Hydraulics will do that combined with someone
being ham handed......

 

[nakneker]

What an interesting thread! It’s fun watching guys with experience share their knowledge, insights, tips and advice.

I’ve learned I don’t think I have the patience or enough mad scientist in me to take on bullet making and that these custom bullets are priced at a bargain considering the hands on time it takes.

I read through it once and will do so again when my head clears a little, thanks to all who contributed!

 

[JoeDuke]

Al, you said
“is it possible/probable that steel dies can tolerate a bit more 'expand up' than carbide due to the frictional differences between the two materials? Or possibly the extra lube requirements of steel dies play a part? Both? Are there other things to be considered?”
I believe that given the diameter of the Blackmon die, it is possible the die itself may be expanding just a bit.

 

[AlNyhus]

Al,
Not that this is the case for you on the sharp edge in the jacket at the lead line
I have seen this at times a perfect matching punch leaves a sharper edge than a little looser one. Or a punch with a slight chamfer.

Tim, the sharp edge I'm referring to happens at the base of the bullet....the pressure ring area.

The thinking (thunkin' ) is that the extra couple of tenths (that my core seated jackets have) give the material more of a 'run' at the sides of the die than do the larger cored jackets. The extra amount of 'run' lets the material expand more aggressively to the die walls, causing the knife edge and the harder ejection.

Randy is applying his tender ministrations to a new core seat die to pick up the size a couple of tenths...then we'll know for sure.

Your thoughts? -Al

 

[AlNyhus]

I believe that given the diameter of the Blackmon die, it is possible the die itself may be expanding just a bit.

I agree, Joe.

Experimenting with core seating pressures and intentional jacket stretch up to the failure point (around .009-.010-ish on a 1.00" J4), the outer diameter of the cored jacket would pick up a tenth or two as the seating pressure got into the stupid-high range. With normal and adequate core seating pressures, I've not seen an issue, though.

Hope that ejector and extra pins got you up and running.

Good shootin' -Al