- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
maillemaker
I don’t know if this is the correct forum, but I wanted to say that I received my Pritchet mold. Delivery was very speedy after payment. The mold looks to be top quality, including a set screw to lock the sprue plate screw.
I’m very intrigued by the way Noe is able to make multi-cavity molds for hollow-base bullets like Minies. I have never seen this before and I wish all of my molds were double-cavity to speed up production for competition.
The mold came with two sets of core pins, to make lighter and heavier bullets. I also bought the base plug plate to make base plugs out of Bondo (originals were made of boxwood).
I attached my Lee 6-gang handles to the mold with no problems. I’ve got to break in the mold per the instructions and I’m ready to cast some Pritchet bullets and make Enfield-style cartridges!
Steve
maillemaker
-
Replies
-
Will these do?
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/283142/rcbs-lead-dipper
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/286579/lyman-lead-dipper
I see no spout?
OK I found a bottom-pour ladle, which I ordered.
http://www.rotometals.com/product-p/ladle2.htm
Steve
adamsutherland
I would have gone with the RCBS or the Lyman first, they have spouts designed for fitting into the sprue plate hole so that you can go from the horizontal to the vertical with the ladle and mould held together.
The Rowel is just a pouring ladle which works much the same as a pouring pot, the spout is not designed to mate with the sprue hole, they are fine ladles but rare is the large calibre mould that prefers them to the Lyman/RCBS in my experience. The Lyman/RCBS types are my go to ladles for this kind of work.
joeclose
Last night I was able to do some ladle casting with the Lyman ladle.
Definitely makes higher-quality bullets. I am letting them dry (I drop them into water) and I will weigh them. I expect I will see more consistent weights.
Ladle casting is not as easy nor as quick as bottom pour casting, but does seem to create better bullets. Not a single void was seen in the hollow base.
Steve
Ladle casting isn’t as quick but for any rifle calibre 45 and over I find ladle work more efficient in that I get less bullets cast in the time but with more keepers than pot pouring so overall I do get more bullets with the ladle.
Here is an update from another place on my casting with this mould so far:
My .566″ is working well with an average of 574 gns for the long bullet deep cavity and the short bullet shallow cavity 463 gns, a milliput plug comes out at 11 gns fired clay plugs at 14 gns.
The mould works well, season as per the instructions, the mould needs to be HOT at least 425 degrees, the alloy needs to be HOT I’m running mine at 825 degrees and most of all the pins must be HOT I zap mine with a blow torch.
I use a gravity pour with spout just away from the sprue hole letting the alloy swirl in round the edge of the sprue hole, I’m still getting a dimple at the top of the cavity but as the weight is holding to + 2 gns it should be of no consequence.
I add a smidgen of tin as well to help with the fillout.
http://www.full-bore.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=21320&start=20
I, too, am finding I need to run these hotter than my other molds.
I agree that the benefit of fewer rejects probably outweighs the inconvenience of the ladle pour.
Thanks for the idea on Milliput – sounds like a much better idea than Bondo.
I could do fired clay also as I have a propane furnace for medieval armour work but I think the Milliput will be less hassle.
With the ladle pour the cores of my bullets are pristine. I can make out the fine machining marks of the core pin.
Will try to weigh them tonight.
Steve
Has anyone made any cartridges using the .566 Pritchett yet?
I have made up some cartridges using the 1855 pattern and when I use .002″ thick paper I end up with a bullet that is about .578″ in diameter. Sometimes as low as .575 but the the very end of the cartridge is somewhat bigger. I am unable to load them into my Pedersolis that take .578″ bullets.
Steve
Not yet, just back. Hope to get some done this week.
How many wraps of paper? The original first Pritchett cartridge was .568″ for the 2 thou paper they were using then. I dropped this design back 2 thou to accommodate the more readily available 3 thou paper I use. As you are using 2 thou you should have plenty of windage.
I have just sampled half a dozen each of my bullets with both cavities and they are all spot on 0.5655″.
If you are getting variation then I suspect that the base pins aren’t fully seated when closing the mould, after dropping the bullets from the pins I rotate the open mould on its side with the pin retaining side at the bottom, I gently tap the mould handle on that side to seat the pins fully before closing the mould I finally give the handle on the other side a gently tap and I am ready to pour.
The bullets are fine, it’s my cartridges that aren’t.
I think I found the problem.
The 1855 pattern for the outer wrapper is huge. It wraps around the bullet so many times that it increases the diameter a lot even with .002″ thick paper. I don’t know how they used it with a .568″ diameter bullet.
I made up some with the smaller 1859 pattern and printer paper and they are much better. Finished round comes out to about .578. They are just too snug to fit in my Pedersoli guns which take .578 bullets. I bet if I made them using the brown paper, which is .002″ thick, about like newsprint, they would work fine. I need to get a sizing die that I can push finished cartridges through.
Here are the cartridges I made:
http://i.imgur.com/FVpkDwN.jpg
White ones are 1859, brown are 1855.
I cast up some of the .550 bullets tonight, and wrapped them up into cartridges with the 1859 pattern using printer paper. Prior to lubing, they are a perfect fit in my P53 Enfield that has a .577 Whitacre barrel. Might be too snug with lube, but I bet they will be perfect in my Pedersoli P53 and P58.
Steve
adamsutherland
joeclose
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.