- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
johnwelch
I would like to get a mold for .270Win and or 6.8 SPC I am thinking about 130Gr. with a point and gas check , I don’t see much out there in factory molds that would fit this bill for both rifles.
I like the lyman 280473 mold but it does not look to be available any more.
or is there some thing out there I have not looked at?
johnwelch-
Replies
-
adamsutherland
I am a champion of Loverin style moulds and was asked to comment.
The Loverin designs are excellent for use in the faster twist barrel, especially if one needs to push above 1900 fps. I suggest a malleable but hard alloy such as Lyman #2 or COWWs + 2% tin. Both should be WQ or HT’d to a BHN of 23 – 26. I would size at .279/.280, use a quality crimp ON GC and lube with a softer lube that will purge on muzzle exit (2500+ or Lars 50/50 are good). The NOE 280-126-FN would be my choice for the 6.8 SPC because of magazine length and wanting to keep the GC, at least the top of it, inside the case neck.
The NOE 280-129-RN would be my choice for the longer necked .270 Win.
A short throat with either cartridge’s chamber may be a problem though causing the bullet to be seated to deep. That can be ok with many loads but of really pushing the velocity it’s best to keep the GC inside the case neck with either cartridge. I really like the bearing surface % to bullet length on each. Actually Loverin designed the 114 gr 280468 to fit the .270 Win with the GC at the bottom of the case neck and the front drive band just off the leade.
Before choosing either bullet (they both look really good to me) I would measure from the base of the neck to the leade and add the height of a Hornady GC. That will give the perfect bearing surface length for a Loverin style bullet for your rifle. My guess is both of these NOE designs will be too long for the 6.8 SPC. Thus a shorter and lighter weight version might be best for the 6.8 SPC. Wouldn’t take much reduction; a 120 gr? Would even be best in a .270 WSM. Not sure Swede Nelson wants to go there though?
Either way this design and NOE mould would be my choice for the .270 Win for sure.
Larry Gibson
Welcome to the forum Larry!
Thank you for your input, I have a lot of confidence in this design for the calibre.
brucemccreary
Larry Gibson
Larry
Thanks for the input and I’m very happy to see you on our new forum
The only chamber spec’s I have are from Pacific tool
They verifiy what you are saying – the GC is just a little below the neck.
Keeping in mind the weight, We can make any changes that are required
Bullet maker, maker
Al NelsonSwede
Those don’t look that bad at all. I’d be tempted, if I had a .270 or 6.8 SPC to try them. I think they would be very tough to beat by any other design for getting the best accuracy at the highest possible velocity for a cast bullet.
Larry Gibson
I did not know what I was starting here. I did not think the difference in over all length of the two rounds would make a multi purpose bullet such a tall order.
I also did not think about the people putting a bigger priority on the .270 Win. than the 6.8 SPC back wards from my way of thinking.
But still really wanting it to go to a group buy, A 4 cavity in that FP would really be nice.daveridenour
Larry
Thanks for the input and I’m very happy to see you on our new forum
The only chamber spec’s I have are from Pacific tool
They verifiy what you are saying – the GC is just a little below the neck.Keeping in mind the weight, We can make any changes that are required
Bullet maker, maker
Al NelsonAl,
Thanks for posting that print of the 270 WSM chamber! I checked my load data for my A-Bolt. I think the OAL you’re showing for your 128 gr Loverin design is close to the same as what I’m running with my Hornady 150 gr InterLock SP load (bullet length 1.248″). I’m using an OAL of 2.765″ for that one (Hornady’s recommended OAL), and that bullet touches the lands at 2.795″. The longer, “pointier” Sierra 135 gr MatchKing (bullet length 1.280″) touches the lands at 2.881″. There’s room in my rifle’s magazine to seat the Sierra 135 gr HPBT MK bullet out farther too. Our 128 gr Loverin design may not be perfect for my rifle, but its as perfect as I could hope for!
Can we move this thread to the Active Group Buys now?
Dave
…
has anyone considered the tapered bands in a heavier Lovern A LA Ben’s design for the Lovern 30cal?
that would keep everything in the neck?
Nanuk has raised a question that I wondered about too. I’ve seen a lot of drawings of Loverin design bullets that have some of the top driving bands that taper in toward the nose. Would there be any advantages and/or disadvantages in doing so with our design?
With our present design, the first four driving bands (from the base up) are spec’d at .281″, and the last three are spec’d at .272″. What would be the advantages and/or disadvantages of having those last three driving bands taper from, for example from .278″ to .275″ to .272″? In other words, that would make the driving bands as follows (from base to nose): .281″, .281″ .281″, .281″, .278″, .275″, and finally .272″.
I’m not complaining about our present design; I’m just wondering.
Also, I was looking a the throat specs for the 270 Winchester, 270 WSM, and the 6.8 SPC. While the 270 Win and 270 WSM throats have a relatively shallow angle and a smooth transition from the case neck to the bore, the 6.8 SPC has a long throat and a rather abrupt angle at the bore. See: http://www.frfrogspad.com/68chambers.htm
Would tapering the driving bands on our Loverin design bullet, with its already long bearing surface, help give it more support and chamber more smoothly in a 6.8 throat, compared to a shorter/lighter bullet with a shorter bearing surface and pointier nose?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks,
Dave
frankelliott
For the 6.8 the maxium bullet length is .85 to fit the magazine of the AR platform. This design is based on the 6.8 chamber and a COAL of 2.26.
My specs for the GC depth is .064 +/- .002 and the GC shank refects that.
The BC is only .25 but, that’s about all you can get with this short of bullet and not give up fit.
Frank
The FN bullet “will do” in the 6.8 SPC but admittedly the GC will be just a tudge down below the case neck to fit the AR magazine. Thus the 6.5-126-FN would be my choice for a “dual” purpose cast bullets for the .270 Win and the 6.8 SPC. A trade off yes but it should be acceptable with in limits in both cartridges. Unfortunately, not the best for either cartridge If Swede wants to go with a separate design for the 6.8 SPC then my suggestion is to just set the FN back against the front drive band eliminating the scraper groove. That bullet then would fit the 6.8 SPC in the magazine perfectly. It should be around 120 gr then for a 6.5-120-FN?
The taper grooves in longer and heavier Loverin designs are a good idea in theory that really doesn’t work out any better than a bore riding nose design, especially at higher velocities, in reality. The reason is with either you have the longer nose sticking out there in the bore (not at groove diameter) only partially supported which reduces the actual bearing surface % of the bullet. Also if one is looking for a “dual purpose” bullet the longer heavier designs become to long for the 6.8 SCP. If one wants to push the 6.8 SPC to potential with cast bullets then designing the cast bullet to maximize the bearing surface, keep the GC inside the case neck and keep the nose as short as practically possible will give the best results. The 6.8-120-FN mentioned would do that. However, for the longer necked .270 Win the longer 6.8- 129-RN bullet should do best there. A “dual purpose” bullet is most often a trade off and thus it would be in this case. Any “trade off” is not conducive to getting the best accuracy at higher velocity in either cartridge. Depends on what one wants.
Larry Gibson
charlesgilbert
Since your interested in Loverin designs. These two are based on the 270 Winchester throat and case neck, as is the 6.8 design.
They’re length will be slightly under the 3.34 COAL allowed for the 270 Win magazine and will stabilize to at least 1400 fps.
One has Loverin type bands with a bore riding nose, the other is a full Loverin type design.
Al is welcome to use or modify any of these 3 designs.
Frank
There are several advantages for those using it with the 270 Winchester.
1. Higher ballistic coefficient. .373 vs .253. Flatter trajectory and less wind drift, for the same velocity.
2. The driving bands, completely fill the case neck, with the GC still in the neck.
3. The driving bands are a little wider (.060/.050 vs .040) so, there is more bearing against the lands, that could help in higher velocitys.
4. Wider lube grooves for increased lube capacity, that would help for higher velocitys.
5. The 5th and 6th band (.276 – .274) fit the throat of the 270 Win. to help keep it centered, when fired.
6. Deeper penetration for hunting.
7. I would be interested in buying it
adamsutherland
brucemccreary
Larry Gibson
daveridenour
frankelliott
charlesgilbert
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.