- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
Full.Lead.Taco
Link to group buy discussion: https://noebulletmolds.com/smf/index.php/topic,2967.0.html
*Update* A gas check option is available. Please specify “GC” or “Gas Check” otherwise it will be assumed you want the plain base version.
We will be running RG2 (2 cavity hollow point) and RG4’s (4 cavity hollow point)
These moulds will come with 3 sets of pins: flat point, cup point, and the deeper hollow point as shown in the drawing.
We offer Blank RG pins on our website for you that like to make your own.
Top punch, wrenches and sprue lube are extras now if you want themPrices will be our standard website prices ( http://www.noebulletmoulds.com )
RG2 cavity $103.00
RG2 cavity Brass $125.00
RG4 cavity $133.00
RG4 cavity Brass $155.00Lyman/RCBS style Top Punch $5.00
Saeco style Top Punch $7.50
Mould Wrenches / Sprue Lube $2.50
RG2 blank pin set $4.50
RG4 blank pin set $9.00Will run this as soon as we get 10 signed up and we get the tooling in.
Will have them listed on our website as a inventory item as soon as we have them ran
So you can use Pay-Pal, Credit Card or Check / Money order
Post a “I want” and receive a 15% discount off the website
We will PM a discount code for you to use at check outIf you have question – Visit our website or PM me
Thanks
Bullet maker, maker
Al Nelson
-
Replies
-
Full.Lead.Taco
Probably should ask the questions about this bullet in the discussion thread (link in the original post) but a quick short answer to your question is “no, probably not.” 30 twist is hair too slow of a twist rate to stabilize the longer bullets. According to the berger stability calculator, if you got it up to about 1000fps in a 30 twist barrel, it would be marginally stable (maybe stable maybe not). The marlin with a 16 twist should have no issues stabilizing it.
Question, would this stabilize from a Rossi M92 with 1 in 30 twist at 38 Special velocities?
Mike B.
I have a question about the 358-195-HP rev 2 dwg.
The designator says 358, but the drawing sketch shows all of the cast bullet diameters @ .357 Diameter.
Would it not be better to have the drawing corrected to have the cast bullet diameter to be as cast to .358 and thus allow one to size & lube to .357?markkilgore
ericstevens
Gentlemen, I thank you for your replies.
That is what I believe the forums are for.
My experience with NOE moulds shows that they are far more likely to cast to the diameter as marked.
I do understand where you are coming from…I believe that the first message in this string started out with something to the effect that I have swaged these for years…
It has been mentioned in subsequent private messages to me that I have received that a number of shooters intend to PC the cast bullets produced.
That tends to build up around .001 in diameter if done properly & sparingly.
More if not done so properly…That is not to doubt any of the abilities of the responders to my query of last evening in any way shape or form.
For those shooters who do not intend to PC, and would prefer to traditionally size & lube simultaneously, it has been my experience historically that the cast bullet as depicted will end up with product that will end up being biased to the minus side of the machining tolerance spectrum.
That tends to produce somewhat less than optimal accuracy, unless your particular actual barrel specs happen to be on the minus side too.
I contacted Al last evening by email…in this regard, & am waiting for his reply to my query on the final diameter that he intends to shoot for once this goes to press.
Personally I think that the mould as depicted should be named 357-195-HP (PB or GC) as applicable.
Not as it is currently displayed as 358-195-HP.My point in all this is I believe… two fold.
1. To get the final intent out in the open of what the final finished cast bullet diameter is more likely to actually be when manufactured by NOE.
a. Hopefully it will be on the plus side of the machining tolerance spectrum. However that, I do not believe at the moment is clear from NOEs manufacturing nomenclature standpoint…2. To get the mould designator to more accurately portray what the predominance of the NOE designators have been describing in the past.
Normally I believe the NOE name designator spells it out quite plainly… .358 is guaranteed to throw a .358 dia cast bullet when done properly.
I also tend to believe that normal manufacturing tolerance window I believe is around .002 on a CNC machine.
It all comes down to what the CNC machine is setup to machine. Will it be a Plus , a Minus or a Centered machining tolerance window?
Are you willing to bet money that all of the individual cavities in your moulds that you will receive will be on the plus side of the normal CNC manufacturing tolerances?
I am at this instant in time waiting to hear back from Al in this regard.
If he can guarantee that the mould that I get will throw a .358 in all the cavities when using the proper procedure than I am interested, and all is well and good in the neighborhood what ever the final moulds designator is…
I also have the same TMT design software that NOE uses and I use it for my own personal use and ballistic calculations.
I have no other reason or axe to grind otherwise.
Take Care, & Stay Safe…
Size was mentioned early on in “Group Buy Discussions”. The intent was to emulate Cainttype’s SOFT SWAGED bullets for expansion at low velocity.I never smoke cavities or introduce anything else into the mould that might alter the diameters, my normal “hard” mixes are low Sb, and have ALWAYS cast .001″+ over NOE’s line drawing regardless of the designation attached. THIS bullet was to drop on-size when cast soft so as to minimize sizing whether conventional lube or powder coated. There are no shortage of oversize designs catalogued for those who must size down.
OBTW… The forecasted cast weight noted is with wheelweights alloy, so in that regard the 195 grain prediction. that forecast cast bullet weight of 195 grains is not valid.
With a 50,000 pound press and die set one can process I believe up to 1 to 20 lead alloy…
I tend to believe that wheelweights are harder than that.
Therefore the perceived soft cast intent as noted in the attached note is not correctly representing what one can expect to get, and is also thus misleading in the intent to those looking not just at the cast bullet dimensions, but the supporting data listed at the bottom of the mould sketch.
It is a simple matter to change the alloy type in the TMT software to forecast what the cast bullets will actually weigh and rerun the bullet sketch with the design software doing the math and automatically displaying the forecasted cast bullet weight.
For instance with pure lead the forecasted cast weight using the bullet sketch dimensions will be approximately 202 grains, not 195 the 195 grain ideal.
Also if one knows anything about metallurgy one will realize that the Tin and Arsenic alloy metals are added to the mix not only to make the cast bullet harder, but also to fill out said mould features more fully.
There is I believe a little lead ditty that goes:
The softer the alloy the heavier the cast bullet… .
Thus a pure lead projectile will by definition weigh more than an alloy one from the same mould.
The harder the alloy the larger the cast bullet…
This is because the addition of tin and arsenic not only are used to harden the alloy, but to fill out the fine aspects of a mould a bit more fully than it normally would be with just pure Pb (Lead).
Any more, & this would turn this reply into a metallurgy 101 class… Which is not my intent herein…
I simply asked the questions that I thought needed to be asked so that everyone buying into this group buy would be going into it with their eyes open…
I have said what I believe needed to be said constructively… both in public on the forum, & in the private PM’s of several of those who chose to PM me in regard to my concerns.
This is for all intense and purposes a single purpose mould for the 38 special to I believe be used at short range…
How you use your product is strictly up to you..
If it is your experience that your NOE moulds have consistently thrown a +.001 to – a + .002 diameter for you…
Then you may or may not depending on your individual pocket revolvers cylinders have to nose size your cast product in front of the tiny crimp grove to get them to drop into the cylinder with room to spare without a shoe horn…
If for you this is a good fit… & your latest hearts desire… then by all means… Please go forward with alacrity on this group buy commitment.
I wish you only… All the best of luck with each of your new moulds.
It has been my personal experience that Swaging and Casting each have their own particular purpose, & their own particular idiosyncrasies… in producing good product…
For me… this time out, this cast mould design appears not to be a good fit for me in my applications.
If any of you down the line want my help or advice on this or any other subject… then please feel free to PM me.
I will simply try to do my best to try to help.. if you want it.
Take Care, & Stay Safe.
jaredcase
adamsutherland
anthonylafleur
Mike B.
markkilgore
ericstevens
jaredcase
tomhamernik
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.