- This topic is empty.
-
Topic
-
AlvinYork
Meant to get to this sooner . . .
In another thread concerning 9mm bullets I mentioned the bullet under discussion might be good with the 350 Legend. Cornmastah then brought up that the legend has some special needs based on a rib in the magazines. tmaloy made a recommendation for a starting – the RCBS 147g 0.359 – where the first change would be the inclusion of a gas check.
I’m hoping cornmastah might draw up that prototype, if it looks good, using that fancy software he has. Actually, I have the same software I just haven’t had a chance to put the time in to really make a decent drawing.
So, let’s discuss and try to come up with the best bullet out there for the 350 Legend!
AlvinYork-
Replies
-
Mike B.
tommeboy
I did a .341 dimension as requested by Tomme on the markup that I forwarded to Al for you.
However I agree with you about the .343 diameter straight shank.
if I had my choice in the matter I would go with the slightly larger straight shank to get a tighter crimp fit.
The standard “B” dimension inside gas check cup dimension is .344 for a Hornady in that particular cast bullet caliber.
I would imagine that the other 357 caliber GC’s are similar in that “B” cup dimension.Then go for 342″ then. The main problem is the tapered shank. It causes way too many problems. The only mould I have had problems getting checks onto have been a tapered shank. I have never had a problem with Tom’s moulds as they have all been a straight shank.
Another reason I wanted a 0.341″ was because I powder coat. I normally put my checks on after coating. It saves me having to size and check first before coating.
If you are running this with traditional lube then you don’t have to worry about too much powder coat on the shank.
Maybe we need two slightly different cast bullets & diameters then?
One set of diameters for the powder coaters who will be adding PC material to their castings, and a slightly larger set of diameters for us traditional lube casters who just want to GC size, and lube.
The larger shank dimension would alloy for a tiny bit of shrinkage for us traditionalists too.
An example of this would be like the .225 & 228 versions of that 22 caliber cast bullet forum discussion which I believe is currently underway.
If both 35 caliber sizes could be made with the same basic tooling in this truncated cone discussion then those that want which diameter could vote when they place their mold order.
So… maybe a .340 -.341 shank and proportional other dimensions for the powder coaters, and a .343 shank diameter on the current original markup drawing for the traditional lubists?
if this is possible then both parties get what they wanted.That way we might also end up with a .355 and a .357 version for those 350 Legend shooters that can’t use a .357 diameter cast bullet in their rifles chambers and must go with .355 to help keep the chamber pressure down.
Maybe Alvin can ask Al about that?
Good idea regarding the shanks Mike B.! I’ve seen that done in other buys. I guess we could post both options and see what kind of response we get. Personally, if we’re going to do that then my d’ruthers would be for the original tapered shank as this gives the check something to swage into.
I think for the two different dimensions we could leave it at .357 and leave it to the individual user to size down to their desired diameter…That works for me.
It also allows for any tiny bit of roundness at the bottom of the GC cup “B” dimension when it is formed.
That way the GC itself can potentially fit a tiny little closer – tighter to the bottom of the cast bullet for us traditionalists.
As one of the other postings mentioned the cast bullet design @ .357 can then be used for other cartridges too besides the 350 Legend.
I can envision the PC coating potentially building up on the base of a PC coated bullet and potentially causing Tomme’s GC seating issue.
Each process variation has its idiosyncrasies.
If one optimizes too much for one, then the other variations can potentially suffer or be made more difficult.I would not use a tapered shank for either design. It does not work well for bare or coated bullets. You have more of a chance to seat the check square if it is straight.
If all you use is Hornady checks, you can actually make a reverse taper. Then the check will be locked solid and will never come off.
I have not had any problems with any checks with a straight shank.
I mainly use Gator checks and they crimp on and do not come off. I have used Sages aluminum checks on 35cal and they are formed very shallow. And they do not work the best with a tapered shank. As the check is sized it extrudes the check longer and if not seated perfectly it can fall right off. If it is not seated square you will get one side longer than the other.
I run my bullets I am using right now at 0.356″ Using Winchester brass this is the MAX you can use. 0.357″ works as it will size the whole bullet.
I guess then that it is two votes at the moment for stepped shanks, and one vote for straight shanks at the moment.
Now we need to see who else might join the forum subject, and what they vote for.03-01-2020
The following intel is from one of the gas check manufacturers website.Gas checks can be tedious to use, it depends on how tight the sizing dies are.
When using gas checks the bullets can be beveled slightly to help with getting them on evenly.
The gas checks have to be very thin to work, so the sizing die must be completely smooth.
The bases need to be clean and even, the gas check needs to be fully seated.
This is why the original design on the NOE drawings show what appears to be a stepped (Actually tapered GC shank base).
I hope that this intel helps.
Mike B.
tommeboy- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.