Getting there...

armoredman · May 23, 2013, 12:48 AM

Sure Shot Mc Gee · May 23, 2013, 06:43 AM

Shouldn't take all that much to tighten them up. Non MIA and all hit paper I hope? Otherwise not bad for cast on your first try in that rifle._

dahermit · May 23, 2013, 07:39 AM

In my work with cast lead bullets in rifles, I always used at least a 9x scope, usually higher magnification when working on finding an accurate load. Then with guns (Win. 94, etc.),that I had no intention of having a scope on when hunting, I would remove the scopes. Just using iron sights during load development is a handicap inasmuch as it seems to make it more difficult to differentiate between an inaccurate load and human error.
Aside from that, if you are shooting a SKS, then what you got may be all that you are going to get out of cast bullets and your gun. However, if like me, you have a Ruger M77 in 7.62 x 39, you may have some significant improvement to look forward to.

armoredman · May 23, 2013, 09:19 AM

Rifle used.

No scope available, has a red dot. Most of the investigation was making sure that the bullet/load wouldn't lead in a gas gun, and it worked perfectly for that. When I get my CZ 527CSR back from it's stay with the gunsmith, I will be trying this bullet with it and some different powders.

Thanks for the comments.

Rangefinder · May 23, 2013, 04:32 PM

Try some H335. With that light a bullet I'd start in the realm of 18gr. to make sure cycling is solid.

armoredman · May 23, 2013, 05:27 PM

It's actually heavier than the standard service bullet of 123 grains. I've used the Lee 160 grain Tumble Lube bullet in this caliber before, and until I was gifted with this magic allow, leading was my mortal enemy. I ended up with lead in the gas tube, piston face and splattered in front of it. No failures due to it, but I wasn't able to use my cast loads in my semi auto.
Here is the same bullet/load earlier shot at 50 yards.

Here is the Lee 160 grain bullet, used on an emergency backup target 25 yards kneeling.

No, the shots weren't high - the bulls eye is cutoff halfway.

Rangefinder · May 23, 2013, 07:29 PM

Yup, I meant "that light" in comparing to what I normally use--16gr. under the 160 you are referencing, but mine actually finishes at 173gr.

SO, I guess I shoulda mentioned that part. Doubt you'd get cycling with much less than 18gr. on H335 with a 129gr. pill, but you could ladder it and see. Took 14gr. on the 173's for me and 16gr. to tighten it all in. You might start there.

On an off note for a truly heavy pill, I have a 220gr. pill worked up that's kind of fun.

It's my "poor man's Blackout"...

armoredman · May 24, 2013, 12:02 AM

I'm actually branching out past what the old industry "standards" were. For instance, when the factory "recalibrated" all the data for their powders recently, AA#1680 was downgraded - the old standard load of 24 grains under a 123 grain bullet was reforumlated to being too low powered for the cartridge - minimum is now 25.5. Sooo....I did something we normally don't do - I guessed. I was given an upper limit of 19 grains at CB, and because of the "reformulation", I began experimenting above that. I found 21 grains to give excellent functioning and slightly better accuracy. Hard to say I'm exceeding any data when there barely is any. Not many people appear to play with this one.
The target with the 160s is also 21 grains, which I think is a wee bit too hot for that slug, even with a hard alloy.

200 grain? Yikes...doesn't leave much room for bang dust!

Rangefinder · May 24, 2013, 06:09 AM

bang dust... good one!

I'd have to dig through notes to confirm, but memory at 0-dark-thirty says 13.5gr. RL-7 pushes the 220gr. pill rather well and cycles. I haven't had near enough time to develop that one the way I want it yet (also completely off-book--or, guess, as you mentioned

), but the intent is to work it into a cycling accurate load at just inside the sonic wall--AKA, my sub-sonic freight train. One of these days I'll have the time to get it dialed right where I want it.

Fun to work with something that makes most people look at you funny, scratch their head, and say "You're doing WHAT, again?" isn't it?

armoredman · May 24, 2013, 01:12 PM

Heck for years I had people asking my why I was bothering to reload such a cheap, commonly available caliber...then came 2008 and I was the only one at the range quite often...

Never used Reloder powders, Accurate Arms #1680, H4895, and H-335 are what I have around now, and I save the H-335 for 5.56mm loads.

May 23, 2013, 04:32 PM	#5
Rangefinder Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 2,017	Try some H335. With that light a bullet I'd start in the realm of 18gr. to make sure cycling is solid. __________________ "Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

May 23, 2013, 07:29 PM	#7
Rangefinder Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 2,017	Yup, I meant "that light" in comparing to what I normally use--16gr. under the 160 you are referencing, but mine actually finishes at 173gr. SO, I guess I shoulda mentioned that part. Doubt you'd get cycling with much less than 18gr. on H335 with a 129gr. pill, but you could ladder it and see. Took 14gr. on the 173's for me and 16gr. to tighten it all in. You might start there. On an off note for a truly heavy pill, I have a 220gr. pill worked up that's kind of fun. It's my "poor man's Blackout"... __________________ "Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

May 24, 2013, 06:09 AM	#9
Rangefinder Senior Member Join Date: August 4, 2005 Posts: 2,017	bang dust... good one! I'd have to dig through notes to confirm, but memory at 0-dark-thirty says 13.5gr. RL-7 pushes the 220gr. pill rather well and cycles. I haven't had near enough time to develop that one the way I want it yet (also completely off-book--or, guess, as you mentioned ), but the intent is to work it into a cycling accurate load at just inside the sonic wall--AKA, my sub-sonic freight train. One of these days I'll have the time to get it dialed right where I want it. Fun to work with something that makes most people look at you funny, scratch their head, and say "You're doing WHAT, again?" isn't it? __________________ "Why is is called Common Sense when it seems so few actually possess it?" Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.

May 23, 2013, 12:48 AM	#1
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	Getting there...

May 23, 2013, 06:43 AM	#2
Sure Shot Mc Gee Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2012 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,876	Shouldn't take all that much to tighten them up. Non MIA and all hit paper I hope? Otherwise not bad for cast on your first try in that rifle._

May 23, 2013, 07:39 AM	#3
dahermit Senior Member Join Date: October 28, 2006 Location: South Central Michigan...near Posts: 6,501	In my work with cast lead bullets in rifles, I always used at least a 9x scope, usually higher magnification when working on finding an accurate load. Then with guns (Win. 94, etc.),that I had no intention of having a scope on when hunting, I would remove the scopes. Just using iron sights during load development is a handicap inasmuch as it seems to make it more difficult to differentiate between an inaccurate load and human error. Aside from that, if you are shooting a SKS, then what you got may be all that you are going to get out of cast bullets and your gun. However, if like me, you have a Ruger M77 in 7.62 x 39, you may have some significant improvement to look forward to.

May 23, 2013, 09:19 AM	#4
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	Rifle used. No scope available, has a red dot. Most of the investigation was making sure that the bullet/load wouldn't lead in a gas gun, and it worked perfectly for that. When I get my CZ 527CSR back from it's stay with the gunsmith, I will be trying this bullet with it and some different powders. Thanks for the comments.

May 23, 2013, 05:27 PM	#6
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	It's actually heavier than the standard service bullet of 123 grains. I've used the Lee 160 grain Tumble Lube bullet in this caliber before, and until I was gifted with this magic allow, leading was my mortal enemy. I ended up with lead in the gas tube, piston face and splattered in front of it. No failures due to it, but I wasn't able to use my cast loads in my semi auto. Here is the same bullet/load earlier shot at 50 yards. Here is the Lee 160 grain bullet, used on an emergency backup target 25 yards kneeling. No, the shots weren't high - the bulls eye is cutoff halfway.

May 24, 2013, 12:02 AM	#8
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	I'm actually branching out past what the old industry "standards" were. For instance, when the factory "recalibrated" all the data for their powders recently, AA#1680 was downgraded - the old standard load of 24 grains under a 123 grain bullet was reforumlated to being too low powered for the cartridge - minimum is now 25.5. Sooo....I did something we normally don't do - I guessed. I was given an upper limit of 19 grains at CB, and because of the "reformulation", I began experimenting above that. I found 21 grains to give excellent functioning and slightly better accuracy. Hard to say I'm exceeding any data when there barely is any. Not many people appear to play with this one. The target with the 160s is also 21 grains, which I think is a wee bit too hot for that slug, even with a hard alloy. 200 grain? Yikes...doesn't leave much room for bang dust!

May 24, 2013, 01:12 PM	#10
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,297	Heck for years I had people asking my why I was bothering to reload such a cheap, commonly available caliber...then came 2008 and I was the only one at the range quite often... Never used Reloder powders, Accurate Arms #1680, H4895, and H-335 are what I have around now, and I save the H-335 for 5.56mm loads.