REALS CONICALS

[lonewolf5347]

I was wondering has anyone tried drilling a small hole into a real conical changing into a hp bullet design ?

 

[noahmercy]

I did drill some 50 cals for my neighbor. I used a 1/8" drill and went 3/8" deep. He hasn't used it on a critter, but we did shoot into some wet newsprint with a piece of fresh deer hide over it. The expansion was radical and the penetration was reduced by about 50% from the unmodified REAL. It would do a lot of damage, but I doubt it would make it through a Whitetail unless you managed to miss bones. Realistically, though, a 50 or 54 caliber conical does ample tissue damage without hollowpointing. I'm thinking it might be the bee's knees for shooting varmints, though. :m2c:

 

[tx50cal]

Would the real conical work in a 1 in 66" twist? I was thinking about trying them in my round ball rifle.

 

[harryo]

Would the real conical work in a 1 in 66" twist? I was thinking about trying them in my round ball rifle.

Just for fun, I tried some 300 grn REALs in my .54cal GPR, with it's 1:60" twist barrel. They actually shot very well. Just as well as round balls. The 300 grn REALs are the short ones. I don't think the 380 grn ones, which are longer, would work as well but I haven't tried them. I would think the same would be true for the .45cal & .50cal REALs. The short(3 rib) ones would probably work best and the longer(4 rib) ones would be harder to stabilize with a slow twist barrel.

 

[RussB]

Would the real conical work in a 1 in 66" twist? I was thinking about trying them in my round ball rifle.

Just for fun, I tried some 300 grn REALs in my .54cal GPR, with it's 1:60" twist barrel. They actually shot very well. Just as well as round balls. The 300 grn REALs are the short ones. I don't think the 380 grn ones, which are longer, would work as well but I haven't tried them. I would think the same would be true for the .45cal & .50cal REALs. The short(3 rib) ones would probably work best and the longer(4 rib) ones would be harder to stabilize with a slow twist barrel.

sabinajiles....My observation has been the same as yours. It appears that the "shorter" of the REAL familes, combined with a tad less powder charge, works quite well in a lot of the slow twist rifles. :redthumb:

Russ

 

[Slamfire]

I think I'll slip up to the gunshow this weekend and look for a mold for 250 grain 50s. Oughta work in my 1 in 48", Buffalo's 245 grain Balletts do. :hmm:

 

[Rat]

I've kind of discovered that the length of the REAL bullets is no accident...they seem to be very well thought out for certain twists.

The 440 grain REAL, which actually casts out at 456, that I use in my 1861, is theorhetically the perfect length for that rifle's twist, which is 1:66. Of course, realitively speaking, a 1:66 twist in a .58 is a faster twist than it is in a .50 or .54....but the point is that some guy at Lee didn't just decide that "440" sounded like a good weight and made a mould for it...the LENGTH of the bullet was obviously the main criteria.

Anyhow the short REALs you are talking about probably are designed for the slow twist in those barrels. I think the REALs are designed better than people realize.

Rat

 

[RussB]

Rat, I am in 100% agreement. Richard Lee is no dummy! If you have both of his books, it is easy to see he knows what he is talking about. Much of Lee's writings have proven, to me, that he is sometimes smarter than the guru's at Lyman, even though Lyman has the BIG name. I have more bullet molds than the average fellow, by far. And, of all the molds I have, the vast majority are Lee's...simply because they work, and they work at a reasonable price.

Lee has probably had more stones thrown at his products, and personally taken more "cheap shots" than anyone else in the business. I, for one, am sure glad he didn't quit making molds because of that.

Russ

 

[brushbuster]

i absolutely agree ,the few lee moulds i have have prooven accurate and consistent every time at half the cost or better :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :imo:

 

[rayb]

I think what you are implying is that bullet length is related to rifling twist. Doesn't the Greenhill formula account for just that? Now i'll have to look it up and satisfy my curosity. Maybe that was the part of the basis of the real buller design...

I agree with the others about the Lee moulds. Have a bunch and they are great products. Even better prices. Also used his lee loaders, but not any of his newer die sets. Goos products, good prices.

rayb

 

[RussB]

I think what you are implying is that bullet length is related to rifling twist. Doesn't the Greenhill formula account for just that? Now i'll have to look it up and satisfy my curosity. Maybe that was the part of the basis of the real buller design...

I agree with the others about the Lee moulds. Have a bunch and they are great products. Even better prices. Also used his lee loaders, but not any of his newer die sets. Goos products, good prices.

rayb

Rayb...When using the GreenHill formula, the most "often" used constant is 150....and, I feel quite sure the powder of that day and time used this formula to it's fullest advantage.

However, for todays available powders, in black powder, it seems a constant of 130 is more applicable, untill we get over 2,200fps, then a constant 0f 180 is needed.

The Greenhill formula is somewhat flexible, and allows one to work in three perimeters of speed.

Check it out, all of Lee's moulds are based on the Greenhill formula using a constant of 130....and they work quite well....just "round off" the numbers. Don't expect to see a rifle with a 1:49.575 twist...it would not be practical.

Some of the Lyman Moulds are based on the 130 constant. The one that comes to mind is the 575315. A 315gr minie for the .58 cal. favored in the CW muskets.
Now this one is a bit tricky because you can push it at a velocity of 2,000 fps, and it requires a lot of "spearmintin" to get it to "settle in", with top loads.

I wish Ric Carter, or Shooter575 would get in on this. These fellers know this stuff "inside & out".

Russ

 

[rayb]

[quotequite well....just "round off" the numbers. Don't expect to see a rifle with a 1:49.575 twist...it would not be practical......
Russ [/quote]

I think i get it...as in:

"measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, cut with an ax"

:thumbsup: ::

Its like someone (USEPA)telling me to meaure something at 500 feet +/- to the nearest 100th of a foot. With a steel tape. It just ain't real.

rayb

 

[RussB]

[quotequite well....just "round off" the numbers. Don't expect to see a rifle with a 1:49.575 twist...it would not be practical......
Russ

I think i get it...as in:

"measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, cut with an ax"

:thumbsup: ::

Its like someone (USEPA)telling me to meaure something at 500 feet +/- to the nearest 100th of a foot. With a steel tape. It just ain't real.
rayb [/quote]

Yep, Same principal. As far as being "real", I could'nt say one way or the other, as I have to deal with the molds made available and designed by someone else.

Mountain Moulds provides an On-Line system that lets you design your own mold, of your own style, and they cut it for you. I don't know if they make Muzzleloading bullets or not, but if anyone knows a better way of matching a projectile to a current rate of twist, this would be a good way to get it.

Russ

 

[RussB]

Anyone NOT familar with the Greenhill Formula may want to play around a bit with it to get an idea of just what bullet is probably best in the twist they are shooting.

You will get a "better reading" if you substitute another constant for 150 that was used in the original formula...the jury is still out as to "why" 150 was used back in that day, but most suggest it was due to a better grade of black powder.
For smokeless velocity try 180, and for muzzleloaders try 130 for the constant.
............................................................
(cut & paste)
Bullet Stabilization;
An elongated bullet flying through the air without spinning will be unstable and inaccurate. The longer the bullet is in relation to its diameter, the more spin is required to stabilize it. How much spin is required? This relationship is expressed in the Greenhill formula, a simplified verson of which is:
150 x diameter squared divided by bullet length = required spin

Example for a .45 caliber bullet .60 inches long:

150 x .45 x .45 divided by .60 = 50.6 inches

So, for the example bullet, a spin rate of 1:50.6 or faster is required

The formula can also provide us with the maximum bullet length which can be stabilized by a given barrel twist. The formula becomes:

150 x diameter squared divided by twist rate

Example for a .50 caliber barrel of 1:48 twist:

150 x .50 x .50 divided by 48 = .78 inches

The barrel will stabilize a bullet .78 inches long, or
shorter.
............................................................
* If you substitute 130 for 150 you will find that most of the Lee REAL's fall in this catagory.
* If you substitute 180 for 150 you will find that most of the Sierra bullets fall in this catagory.

 

[smokeblower]

I have been drilling hollow points into my .58 R.E.A.L.'s for the past two years. I like the Lee pattern, easy to cast, accurate and forgiving in most twists, and a good self cleaner. I can fire them all day out of my cheapo .58 Euroarms "Z". Plus the mould is half the price of the overrated Lymans and the handles come with each mould.

 

[Rat]

Yes bullet length is the key, not weight...with the hollow bases the minnies are a little long for thier weight. Yep that's what I was talking about.

Yes it's the Greenhill formula I believe that puts the 440 REAL ideal for a 1:66 twist. With a hollow base, skirted minnie with round nose, something in the 315 grain range would probably be about the same length as the 440 REAL.

I've never thought about hollow pointing that bullet, with the very sharp shoulder, and short nose I expect it to cut a very good .58" hole through anything. Without additional expansion it should also be a good penetrator. Cast from pure lead it should expand some, so I don't think I'd bother with hollow-pointing it. Not sure if really rapid expansion is a good thing on that large of a calibre.

I also have quite a box full of Lee moulds...at least 15 plus some Lyman, and unidentified moulds. Sometimes they (Lee) will burr on the mating edges a bit, but I've always been able to fix that no problem when it does happen. That could be more my fault, how I handle them or something, than any fault with the mould. Sure can't beat the price and the free handles!

Rat

 

[brushbuster]

i would guess that a constant of 150 is a good medium numbersince the bottom of your post shows a range of 130 to 180 :imo: :m2c: