Time to make the donuts....

[jackieschmidt]

Seems like the hard and fast rules about dies is that there are no hard and fast rules about dies. Find that sweet spot and stick with it.

Like women, they all have strange personalities....

Later

Dave

 

[20PPC]

With my 30’s, we found that there is something to be said in this.
We played around with going up in just far enough so the knock out pin did its job, (maximum diameter metplate), to where it just stated to “fish mouth”.

We found that the smallest metplate just before fish mouth shot the best.

I made a little tool to measure the Ogive to base, and we strive to keep it right there. The one on the right is our master “gage”. You can see the difference in the metplate diameter and how much it affects the ogive to base measurement.View attachment 1737336View attachment 1737337View attachment 1737338

Jackie, what ogive are your bullets ?

 

[Kiwishooter]

With my 30’s, we found that there is something to be said in this.
We played around with going up in just far enough so the knock out pin did its job, (maximum diameter metplate), to where it just stated to “fish mouth”.

We found that the smallest metplate just before fish mouth shot the best.

I made a little tool to measure the Ogive to base, and we strive to keep it right there. The one on the right is our master “gage”. You can see the difference in the metplate diameter and how much it affects the ogive to base measurement.View attachment 1737336View attachment 1737337View attachment 1737338

Thanks Jackie, those pictures are a novel.
Have you got a pic of the inside of your ogive checking tool, is the bore parallel or tapered?

Thanks

 

[AlNyhus]

You'll have to pardon the image quality...took these in the early 2000's when I was getting started with my first set of Blackmon .30's and wanted to check the nose forward dimension.

Cut a piece of Delrin and made a hole .312" through it. Reduced the diameter on one end so it fit a Hornady Comparator body.

Dabbed some bedding compound inside the hole, a bit of release agent on the bullet and pushed the bullet straight in with the tail stock. After it cured, tapped the bullet out and enlarged the metplat hole a bit so the bullet ogive was where it registered.

Ended up with another way to check the bullets.

Again, sorry for the image quality. My originals were lost when Photobucket imploded and I had to resurrect these from the digital vortex...they've been digitally stepped on a dozen times.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Thanks Jackie, those pictures are a novel.
Have you got a pic of the inside of your ogive checking tool, is the bore parallel or tapered?

Thanks

It is a straight hole that has just a very small chamfer. I only want it hitting on a single point on the bullet ogive.

 

[AlNyhus]

Thought I'd post some pics of the 3D printed jacket trays that @ridgeway is making. Very nice construction, well thought out and big enough w/o being too bulky. This one for the .30's holds 210 jackets.

Having kept track of the time needed to single load jackets and cores the way I've been doing it, versus the time it takes with these jacket trays, these will save about a hour doing 1,000-1,100 .30's. Rather than posting a how-to with the steps involved, @ridgeway has a video that can hopefully get uploaded as a follow up to this. Here's a link to his listing here on them:

SELLING Thread 'Bullet Jacket Loading System'

Tuesday at 5:03 PM

I have 3 complete 6mm 3D printed jacket loading systems ready to ship. They will handle up to 1.150 long jackets and will hold 210 jackets per tray.

Also have one complete system for 30cal.

The system consists of three plates, drop slide plate and a removable fence. The system uses 2 pins to align the stack up. I also have a 6.5mm model and can make other calibers and sizes upon request. 3 of the four are printed out of PETG and one out of PLA. I will sell the PLA system for $250 shipped.

The entire system will run $285 shipped. Additional base plates can be made for $120 each...

• ridgeway
• Replies: 3
• Forum: Tools, Dies, Rests, Reloading Components & Misc

• 

Thanks @ridgeway!

 

[RGRobinett]

I do not check my finished bullets for straightness. I measure the shank and base with a “tenth” micrometer, and I measure the ogive to base at a pre determined point to confirm that the bullets are what has proven to shoot well in my barrel load combination.

I trust that with my lubing techniques and attention to detail, my dies are making a straight and truly round bullet.
to anybody wishing to make their own precision Benchrest Bullets, the key is to listen to start with the very best in equipment, mainly the dies. The rest is listening to those with experience and learn. After a learning curve, and you gain knowledge of exactly how your components are are working together, you can tweak a few things to optimize your expectations.

Then you head to the range. That is when you really find out out if your efforts are as they should be.

Out of curiosity, (since I have 45,000 of them), I made a 30 caliber mandrel to use on my little jacket checker, just to see how good or bad they are. Ed and I have been shooting the bullets made on these for going on three years.

They check pretty good.View attachment 1625813View attachment 1625814View attachment 1625818

Been perusing this thread and am now, up to a full YEAR AGO! The issue with this pic/effort, is that the DATUM point is on the tapered jacket [section] ABOVE the core, on the ogive, thus, closer to the center,
therefore very little center-of-gravity offset.

On the J4 prints, the first DATUM point (hoop) above the base is specified: T.I.R. 0.0003" @ 0.150" from the base - it is THIS dimension (wall-thickness variation), along the STRAIGHT section, which will determine CG offset (concentricity). Both the inside and outside hoops may be perfectly ROUND, but offset, or, non-concentric. Bullet dies will not correct a lack of wall-thickness uniformity. Using T.I.R. here is a misuse of the term, which is measurement of roundness, not concentricity.

At the approximate pictured DATUM point (hoop), the same print specifies: T.I.R. 0.0007" at 0.839" from the base!! Again, even presuming a jacket full of core, the CG offset would not be significant, because, relative to the shank, the mass would be closer to the axis.

Regrettably, it appears that George Ulrich has deleted all of his replies. Though repetitive, my experience, in parallel with George's experience: the Juenke machine, which is mentioned in several posts, proved incapable of distinguishing between "good" and "bad" jackets.

I had an assortment of bullets made with varying amounts of wall-thickness variation , ranging from 0.0001" to 0.0008" at the base DATUM hoop, which I sent to several Juenke owners/users: not a single one sorted them to anywhere near to correct order . . . and no two "sorters" ahcieved the same sequence.
I do not know what the device measured(es), but it's neither wall-thickness, nor uniformity.

The reality is, as Ferris Pendell advised a pal of mine, who had purchased a set of dies,"The best bullet spinner is a good barrel". Targets don't lie. RG

 

[D Coots]

Evidently the Juenke machine measures the thickness of a wallet.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Been perusing this thread and am now, up to a full YEAR AGO! The issue with this pic/effort, is that the DATUM point is on the tapered jacket [section] ABOVE the core, on the ogive, thus, closer to the center,
therefore very little center-of-gravity offset.

On the J4 prints, the first DATUM point (hoop) above the base is specified: T.I.R. 0.0003" @ 0.150" from the base - it is THIS dimension (wall-thickness variation), along the STRAIGHT section, which will determine CG offset (concentricity). Both the inside and outside hoops may be perfectly ROUND, but offset, or, non-concentric. Bullet dies will not correct a lack of wall-thickness uniformity. Using T.I.R. here is a misuse of the term, which is measurement of roundness, not concentricity.

At the approximate pictured DATUM point (hoop), the same print specifies: T.I.R. 0.0007" at 0.839" from the base!! Again, even presuming a jacket full of core, the CG offset would not be significant, because, relative to the shank, the mass would be closer to the axis.

Regrettably, it appears that George Ulrich has deleted all of his replies. Though repetitive, my experience, in parallel with George's experience: the Juenke machine, which is mentioned in several posts, proved incapable of distinguishing between "good" and "bad" jackets.

I had an assortment of bullets made with varying amounts of wall-thickness variation , ranging from 0.0001" to 0.0008" at the base DATUM hoop, which I sent to several Juenke owners/users: not a single one sorted them to anywhere near to correct order . . . and no two "sorters" ahcieved the same sequence.
I do not know what the device measured(es), but it's neither wall-thickness, nor uniformity.

The reality is, as Ferris Pendell advised a pal of mine, who had purchased a set of dies,"The best bullet spinner is a good barrel". Targets don't lie. RG

This last sentence says it all.