Shooters Forum banner

348 Bullets - My Way To Get More Variety

12K views 14 replies 10 participants last post by  riley 
#1 ·
This may be a Reloading type thread, but its applicable only to Winchester and Browning Model 71 shooters, and this surely is the right place to reach most of those folks.

Like most model 71 "348" shooters, I would like to shoot a wider variety of bullets, but the bullets available for relaoding are very limited. They are limited in weight, in style, and brand.

Wouldn't you like to have a very wide choice of bullets, from 150 grain up to 250 and maybe even some above and below those weights. And how about boat tails and spire points.

Before I get into this, let me assure you that I understand the requirement to use bullets that will not cause a primer detonation in the magazine during recoil in these guns. I have not achieved the goal yet, and before moving forward want to get some thoughts from other "71" enthusiasts.

Here goes:
I have done lots of looking and see that there are many bullet designs that are available for 35 caliber guns. Problem is that the 35 cal. bullets are .358 diameter and as we all know the "71" requires .348 diameter bullets.

That's only ten thou. oversize.
Why can't those .358s be swaged down to .348. That's only 2.9% oversized .

Seems like anyone with the right swaging tool, the right lubricant and a press (Like Rock Chucker) should be able to squeeze a 35 cal. through a .348 die and get a perfect .348 bullet as a result.

Now that the 35 cal. LeveRevolution bullets are available for relaoding, they would be a perfect candidate, but there are lots of others too.

Here are the design challenges. Has anyone already overcome these?:

a] Acquire a carbide swaging tool that has a forcing cone and bore that does a final sizing to .348.
b] A bullet guide to hold the 35 cal. bullet as it is forced through the die. It would ride on the press ram. This could be one that sits in the spot where a case holder normally resides. The guide could be designed to hold a flat base or boat tail base. Don't know which would work best. I would recommend that it handle either the flat base or boat tail bullets, with the capability of pushing the bullets all the way through the sizer.

How about some of the "real experts" jumping in on this discussion and giving an indication whether this idea has some paratical posibilities or otherwise. If not practical, I think folks would like to know the particulars.

Bob N.
From Redstone Arsenal in Alabama
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I haven't tried it but it is my understanding that resizing jacketed bullets is not a good idea. The reasoning is that the jacket metal is somewhat elastic and when sized down will spring back somewhat. The lead core is non elastic and will remain at its' smallest sized diameter. That will leave the core slightly loose inside the jacket which would not be good either for accuracy nor for performance on game.
 
#3 ·
Excellent thoughts.

As you are probably aware we reloaders know that a case resizing die actually squeezes the brass to a smaller diameter than what is intended as the finished resized case size. This is due to the elasticity of the brass (It is notably more pronounced since the brass case is hollow and when pressured by the resizing die is free to compress into the air space).

On a true technical note, lead is actually also elastic but the modulus of elasticity is smaller than that of the gilding metal. The minute amount of elasticity difference is so small that even with a non-bonded core bullet, there would be no perceptible separation.

However many of today's bullets have the lead bonded to the gilding metal. That would preclude separation of the sort you show concern about.

For Barnes type bullets, there would be no alasticity differential, therefore these would be candidates that would not raise this concern.

I expect that a bullet resizer would need to have its diameter undersized to compensate for the "elastic rebound".

Great insight and exactly the thoughts I hope to provoke.
With more responses, we can either relegate the idea to a wish list or take it a step further with some prototyping and testing.
Bob N.
 
#4 ·
Been migrating around and found that swaging is covered a bit over on http://forums.accuratereloading.com/ in the bullet making section and elsewhere.
No-one addressed swaging non-lead core bullets such as Barnes.
Comments were made that about 0.006 was near the limit of a once through swag process.
Also was a mention that the point at which some of the experts said that core separation began to develop was about 0.006
 
#5 ·
It would seem to me that attempting to swage a monolithic bullet like a Barnes would require enormous strength in a human powered press. I have not tried this, so I could be wrong.
OK, you need bullets of .348 diameter. As has been previously discussed, there are problems with swaging down .358 bullets.
Have you considered bumping up .338 bullets? The amount you have to bump the .338's up is no farther than swaging .358's down, and you'd avoid the 'springback' or elasticity problems.
 
#8 ·
I have been looking at an alternative to swaging.
I have a precision lathe and am looking at the possibility of making a jig that would be held in my lathe chuck and have a complement piece in the tail stock. It would hold monolithic bullets and allow the lathe to cut their diameter down to the correct diameter. With the bullets in a jig, cutting them down to .348 would be a very basic task, not unlike how they are manufacture.
Bob Nisbet
 
#9 ·
OP'er requested advice from "real experts" and I don't consider myself expert at anything, but I do have a little experience with sizing jacketed bullets down to smaller diameters. Mostly .338's down to .330 for the Austrian Steyr/Mannlicher Model 1895. My work was all done with Lee push-through sizing dies designed for cast bullets. Adequately lubed, jacketed bullets can be down-sized this way. Best to do it in steps of .005 or less if poss. Lee will make custom push-through sizing dies for about $25 apiece. Depending upon the brand of bullet, some go through the die easier than others. In my experience, Speer seems to want to size easiest of the major brands. Bullet design factors need to be considered, too. Short, sharply angled ogives go through the sizing die more easily than long, gently sloping ones (like round-nose) because the greater exposure of the bullet shank to the die gives increased friction.

So long as the base of the bullet is square to the bottom punch, the lubed bullet seems to line up properly without any difficults as to concentricity that I've ever noticed. This might be an issue with some bullet designs such at BT, but I've never tried re-sizing any of those.

Go for die sizes .001 smaller than desired finished size, for example, if you want a .330 bullet, get a .329 sizing die 'cause there is about .001 springback to most resized jacketed bullets. Then again, this might not be a problem if you have an old rifle with a worn bore.

On some bullet brands/designs once you go over .005 or so you might see the lead in the soft point start to ooze forward a bit from the jacket material. I've never had a bullet with a noticeably loose core that I was aware of. I've never had the theorized lead core go flying out the barrel, leaving the jacket stuck in the bore. I must add that I'm not doing barn-burning velocities in the Steyr Model '95's either, mostly not over 2,400 fps. The possibility of separation might be more of an issue with bullets launched at speedier velocities.

I don't do this much any more because Graf's (Hornady) and Buffalo arms make .330 size jacketed bullets. The "Great Ammunition and Component Shortage" has taken its toll, too. Used to be, I could find .338 bullets in the "bargain bin" of various gun shops, as .338 is mostly a hunter's caliber and not so much a target shooters. The bargain bins are pretty sparse now.

One time I did experiment with taking 200 grain WW .358 bullets all the way down to .330. With lots of lube, I did these in one step but had to make two passes due to about .002 springback. Worked out well, too, but that first pass was a pretty tough monkey. Very sharp ogive on the finished resized bullet. I got the .358's very cheaply, but I gave them to a friend with a .35 Rem. instead of fooling around with them. I can be done.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I found a picture that I saved of the .358 bullet taken down to .330. The bullet as originally made is on the left, the resized on the right. After thinking about this a bit, I remembered that the bullet sprung back about .001 after the first pass all along its bearing surface except at the heel, where the spring back was .002. This went away after the second pass. If you look closely at the base of the resized bullet, you will note a slight distortion. In my experience this doesn't happen when you are down-sizing .010 or less. Going down .028 is a bit much, but I thought I'd try it. The bullets I fired gave no problems and were reasonably accurate but the Steyr M95 isn't exactly a bench-rest gun.

Along the same line, I bought some supplies from an old boy who had also been playing around with the Steyr M95. In the bunch of stuff I got from him, there were some Barnes solids originally made in .338 that had been turned down on a lathe to .330. That's an expensive way to go, though.
 

Attachments

#12 ·
Was being done many years ago when projectiles for big bores were hard to come by. This demand was what got Woodleigh projectiles started. A few were using hydraulic presses pushing projectiles through draw down dies made out of barrel stubs ... 458" were being drawn down to the many variations found in 45cal double rifles, plus 0.440" for Schulers. 338cal were drawn to 330" for Jefferys etc... Its an old idea which is still applicable today.
Cheers...
Con
 
#13 ·
Great responses all.
Two different guys have sent me a few 358 jacketed bullets to try cutting down to 348 on my lathe.
Will be a while before I can make the fixtures, but its an item on my to-do list.
If t works, I will invest in some monolithics and see if they also work if cut down.
Thanks fellas.

Bob Nisbet
 
#14 ·
I've tried both bumping-up from .338" and swaging-down from .358" and IF you run the BASE FIRST through the sizer, I like the results of the .358" to .348" deal best. I used a Lyman Lubri-Sizer to go to 354" then a Lee pass-through that I reamed to .348" - both operations used case lube on the jacketed bullet. Bullets came out around .3485" or so. The idea behind "base-first" is so the jacket stays tight on the core, leaving imperfections (if any) on the nose - not the base. And as we all know - "the base drives the bullet."

The "swage-up" deal looked like, to me, one of those "fat-kid" mirrors at the fun-house. Shot almost as good, but was dog-ugly. FWIW....
 
#15 ·
I've been resizing .323 diameter bullets for my 8X57JR (.318) "Drilling" for many years now with very good results on "target" and on game. The individual that sold me the .318 die stated that Speer bullets would work best and that Sierra's were the worst (because of "boattail" design?). I use a "punch" with the die mounted on a board that is cut (counter sunk)to hold the die and allow the bullet to drop through. Lube does help in the process! I have to agree with the "posters" that say .005 seems to be the "magic" resize number. I've tried resizing .366 diameter "Privi" bullets to .358 and the amount of force and resistance increases "two fold". I've not had any appreciable size "bounce back" to effect pressures or accuracie when staying within .005 criteria.
I've not tried "bumping up" operations. Could someone please address this operation and how well it work?? Thanks for the info.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top