I recently acquired a custom mould for the 8x57 Mausers that is a gas-checked sihouette style, single lube groove, and weighs in at 196 grains.  Fits my military Mauser throats snug and I like having the lube groove captured within the case neck. Very similar to the RCBS sihouette design.

Loaded a set of twenty up with a fairly brisk charge to push 'em fast, faster than I would expect good accuracy at but thought it worth experimenting since these pills fit the throat so well.

After printing ten on paper at 100 yds I was disappointed with a 9 inch scattergun group. My luck at pulling cast boolits from loaded cartridges has been dismal, often ending up with damaging the boolits beyond re-use so I decided to "unload" the remaining ten rounds by sending them down range at a 12 inch steel gong at 220 yds.

Lo and behold I nailed that steel gong ten out ten times.

Could this be a case where the boolit is taking some time going down range to stablize, hence, "going to sleep"?

The lube I use is Lars Carnauba Red which is fairly stiff but not sure if that could be a factor or not. My next thought is to back off on the charge slightly and see what happens.

Nels

I've never been a proponent of the concept of a bullet "going to sleep" because I simply can't find a physical explanation for it. However, I keep a open mind about it because I hear about it's 'observation' from reliable sources. The 'observations' are all akin to what you describe above. Clearly, something is "going on", but what the cause is can't be easily observed or specifically replicated.

With regard to pulling cast bullets, have you tried and inertial puller? For soft-nosed bullets, I stuff the chamber with cotton, and take a series of lighter taps. I can't recall unloading any cast bullets, (I have a tendency to "unload" them downrange too :) ), but I'd be surprised if you couldn't get the noses to stay "perfect" at least. However, I think they may still be deformed by the seating or unseating process, especially if they have been crimped.

If you get a chance, could you post a picture of the cast bullet?

Thanks,
Paul

By the way, it's encouraging to a cast boolit novice like me to hear of an experienced cast boolit shooter having the kind of luck I usually have with getting cast boolits to shoot straight.

Paul

My sleeping bullet experience wasn't with cast bullets, but I have been down that road with jacketed bullets. I was in Paul's camp of "non-believers" until I saw it for myself.

All it took to get the bullet back on the right path was to drop the powder charge a bit and everything was happy.

I can't see what the difference between it happening with a cast bullet or jacketed bullet would be. They are both mostly lead right? I had my sleeping bullet trying to make a rifle shoot another rifles pet load and seein's as how I need my varmint rifles to shoot eensy teensy groups throughout their useful trajectory, it behooves me to try anything to make them do it.

Also have a similar situation occurring with the 300RUM. I'm not sure at this point what to make of it or how to cure it, so it (the rifle) is going to just have to deal with it. At 200 yards my groups are the same size if not a tad smaller than a 100 yard group. In all reality groups should get bigger the longer the distance.

Right?

RJ

Here's the problem I have with bullets "going to sleep":

What force acts on the bullet to REDUCE runout?

Bodies in motion do not change their motion without a force being applied. (Ya just can't violate the laws of physics.) Once the bullet leaves the barrel, what forces are 'available' to act on the bullet to get it to  CONSISTENTLY change its motion. The only forces I am aware of are wind and gravity. Wind is random, NOT consistent, and while gravity is constant, it is constantly in one direction - "down". So... Tell me what what force makes a bullet's angular deviation from line of flight get smaller?

I don't doubt the veracity of the observations, but I do question the completeness of the "experiments". In order for me to be convinced that a bullet can "go to sleep", I would have to see repeated experiments where all variables were kept the same. In Nels' example, the information we don't have is the actual distribution of the "9 inch scattergun group" and the distribution of the hits at 220 on the 12" gong. I can think of several circumstances that explain the variation between those two observations that doesn't include the invocation of a mysterious external force. (Although I too would have expected mostly misses based on the initial 100-yd group.)

In RJ's example, if I read it right, reducing the charge (muzzle velocity) eliminated the "sleeping". If that's the case, why would some force act in some cases and not others?

Because I continue to hear of examples of "smaller groups at longer ranges" from reputable sources, I maintain an open mind regarding "sleeping" bullets. But I also maintain a high level of skepticism because I can find no explanation that doesn't violate the fundamental laws of motion in the universe as we know it, AND, I have seen no one else provide such an explanation.

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that Nels' groups tighten up when the muzzle velocity slows down.

Paul

The question still remains though . . . . .

WHY IN THE $#&& does my 300RUM groups get smaller/stay the same size (in area, not m's oa) as distances double. It's SUPPOSED to happen!!!! By the laws of nature and physics it's SUPPOSED to happen. Oh yes I know a minute of angle get's "bigger" as far as size in square inches, but that's not what I mean. A rifle that shoots miserable 1/2-3/4 moa groups at one hundred yards should in all reality shoot those same groups at 200, 300, yadda yadda yadda yards NOT not in area BUT IN MOA.

So you see my point. A rifle that can put x number of shots under a dime at 100 yards and keep them there out to 200 yards (OK a nickle at 200) is bending if not breaking the laws of physics.

Am I complaining? NOT HARDLY

RJ

I dunno what to believe any more, but just to be safe, I think I'll start checking my bullets before I fire them to be sure they're awake!
 
Imagine waking up, doing 3100 fps at a solid object.  It's no wonder they dodge a bit along the way.
 
:)
 
Daryl

:) :) :)

I dunno, RJ. It's because I believe folks like you that I keep an open mind on the matter.

But it's a complicated matter. Just going one distance point to another doesn't really address the "why". Using your "dime" at 100 and nickel at 200 has some assumptions. If the 200 yd group is larger - AT ALL - then nothing "special" may be going on at all. Lemme 'splain.

In this case, I MUST differentiate between "accuracy" and "precision". Accuracy is the ability of a rifle AND THE SHOOTER to hit A SPECIFIC POINT IN SPACE. If a rifle/shooter combination can put 10 shots inside half an inch at 100 yards, but they can't hit the bullseye with any of those 10 shots because the 'scope is off, they're NOT ACCURATE. The RIFLE is VERY precise, but depending on how far off the bull they are, they could be extremely INACCURATE. Precision is "small groups"; accuracy is hitting exactly what you aim at with ONE (or many) shot(s). A rifle's precision is a constant. A person's precision is MOST CERTAINLY NOT constant.

OK, let's say you have a RIFLE that is VERY precise. In fact, it is so precise that if it was mounted in a mechanical grip, it could put 10 shots in the exact same hole at 100 yds. Then let's say that your are NOT capable of that level of precision. Let's say the best you can hold that rifle still is plus or minus about 0.001" (roughly 1 MOA at 100 yds). Next, you settle in to shoot a group at 100 yds and shoot a 1" group of 3 shots. Next, you move the target out to 200 yds and shoot a 3-shot group of 1.25 inches instead of the expected 2 inches. The bullets didn't "go to sleep", you are just seeing yourself holding "tighter". If the rifle was mounted in a mechanical stand, the 200 yd group would be exactly the same as the 100 yd group - namely all in one hole.

The point is: If you take the 100-yd group as a measure of the precision of the rifle instead of the precision of the rifle AND SHOOTER, you don't know whether the group's size was a function of the rifle's precision, or the shooter's 'wobbling'. If it was the shooter, group-to-group variation is moment-to-moment variation of the shooter's ability to hold still.

In other words, groups sizes not increasing with range are more likely to be the result of a rifle being significantly more precise than the shooter, than it is that some unexplained phenomenon like "sleeping bullets" is actually happening. Consider the extra-ordinarily small groups shot by people at 1000 yds. (I think the new world record 10-shot group is under 3".) That's the gun AND the shooter being VERY precise. Personally, I think "sleeping bullets" are more often than not just a REALLY precise rifle being shot by someone not as precise as the rifle.

Paul

I'll see your point and raise you this conundrum.
 
When using a dime and a nickle as group size the difference at 200 yards is, well, negilagable, right?
 
In the scheme of things if a rifle and shooter were capable of putting 5 shots (my theory of 5 vs. 3 later) in, say 1/2 moa at 100 yards (an area of roughly 1/2"X1/2"), in the theory of physics, the group should still be 1/2 moa or roughly an area of 1 square inch at 200 yards. Agreed?
 
My "sleeping bullet theory":
 
Once upon a time this feller had a new rifle. He developed a group that shot 1/2 moa at 100 yards. When he took the rifle out to slay sabre toothed sage rats (stsr's) he discovered something very distubing. Out to 150 yards he was able to slay stsr's with great precsion. At distanced greater than 150 yards his percentage was, well, embarrassing. Good thing he was alone when he discovered this. So he went home and shot said rifle at 200 yards, finding that the groups were in excess of 2 moa (about 1.5 minutes of stsr) He then developed a load that was under 1" sq'd at 200 yards or 1/2 moa using .7 grain less powder. Upon shooting this same load at 100 yards, he was very displeased to find that it "splayed" out to 1 moa. (still well under 1 minute of stsr)
 
Unable to 'splain this phenomenon of "the sleeping bullet" to himself he made queeries to some fo his shooting and reloading friends and came up with this theory:
 
"If'n a rifle and shooter are capable of shooting one inch, 5 shot, groups at 200 yards don't mess with a good thing. You'll kill quite a few stsr's on a good day."
 
My theory of 3 shot vs. 5 shot vs. 10 shot groups:
 
"Any shooter can pull off a good three shot group most of the time. A five shot group tests not only the rifle but the shooter as well. A ten shot group prooves to the shooter that he and his rifle are capable of defending the rodent asault vehicle when the stsr's are coming right for you."
 
This does not hold true for rifles used in the taking of big game like deers 'n elks, (Unless of course they are saber toothed deers 'n elks) because you generally only need one shot. This is not to say that the rifle and shooter shouldn't be capable of 1/2 moa 5 shot groups.
 
RJ

Oh, one minute of stsr equals 1 1/2 inches at any distance.
 
RJ

QuoteHe then developed a load that was under 1" sq'd at 200 yards or 1/2 moa using .7 grain less powder. Upon shooting this same load at 100 yards, he was very displeased to find that it "splayed" out to 1 moa. (still well under 1 minute of stsr

It REALLY depends on the number of shots fired. If the 200 yd group was "about" an inch at 200 yds (0.5 MA) and "almost" an inch at 100 yds, (1 MOA) then I would argue that the example essentially corroborates my point about the rifle being more precise than the shooter.

Now if the shooter were to shoot 100 rounds at 200 yds and 100 rounds at 100 yds and the statistical confidence intervals of the two groups were statistically significantly different, THEN I'd be fairly convinced that 'something funny' was goin' on and would have to go look for the force that was acting on the bullet in mid-flight. As presented, it seems perfectly reasonable to me, and doesn't lead me to consider that the "runout" of the bullet's flight path is getting smaller.

I think one of the problems we're all dealing with is the absolute "truth" that we all grew up reading from gunwriters (ptooey) about "accuracy". (They couldn't even get the term for what they were talking about right.) We've all had drilled into our heads that 1 MOA (1") at 100 yds = 1 MOA (2") at 200 yds = 1 MOA (3") at 300 yds, etc. THAT ASSUMES THAT THE SHOOTER HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE PRECISION OF THE "SYSTEM". Put another way, it assumes that the rifle is the "weak link" in the "system's" overall precision. That's just plain wrong. Especially today. There are many rifles made that are capable of shooting more precisely than the shooters shooting them are capable of holding. When that's the case, group sizes at different ranges at different times are not going to follow the "law" that says 1 MOA at one range equals 1 MOA at a greater range.

Paul


PS
Here's a way to quantify the precision of a shooter:

Put a laser in the bore of the rifle in question and have the shooter hold the rifle on target for say 1 minute. (Light travels in a straight line as opposed to a bullet's arc, so range would be immaterial.) As the laser moves around the target, it would etch or other wise mark the paper. At the end of the test interval, the area 'scribed' by the laser would define the precision of the shooter. Then, no matter how precise the firearm was, the "system" of firearm and shooter could NOT do better than the shooter's measured precsion. IN FACT, it is highly likely that the variances would be multiplicative, not additive. Meaning that the "spread" would be the precision of the shooter TIMES the precision of the firearm.

In fact, it strikes me that this would be the perfect test of "sleeping bullets". Strap a laser on a rifle and "sight it in". Have the laser "fire" every time the trigger is pulled when firing a bullet. The laser's mark could then be compared to the bullet's hole. Done with just a few shots - say 5 - at each of a couple of ranges, and the "truth" of "sleeping bullets" could be determined.

The practical problem with the above experiment, is getting a laser strong enough to etch paper at even 100 yds, let alone 200.

Paul

Gun writers = double ptooety
 
But you see my point on the laws of physics vs. group size right?
 
I see and agree with your point on accuracy vs. precsion, which is why I refuse to shoot only 3 shot groups. 5 times the chance for error on the shooters part, 5 times the chance for precsion on the rifles part. 10 shots is even better because than we start to get the rifle hot and are likely to find out just how well the shooter and rifle can take heat and recoil. Good things to know when the stsr's are rabid and coming right for you and the rodent asault vehicle.


Hmmmm, a laser strong enough to "etch paper" might be strong enough to "etch/vaporize" stsr's.

If one could train a camera on the paper with the shutter open for one minute while the laser was also trained on the paper might be more feasable.

And yes the vairiences would be multiplied, I agree.

The one thing we are not taking into account though is that the shooter is going to wait and shoot between heart beats. Maybe. So, now we bring in the mechanical rest and remote trigger puller gizmawhicky.
 
 
RJ

Exhibit #1, a couple of the 196 grain GC boolits next to a couple of 150 grain plain base ones. The 196's are from a mould cut by BRP.



Although it's hard to see the 196's have a small flat on the nose, then swell to .316 in diameter, then gradually grow to .325 before approaching the lube groove. This fits my Mausers' throats exceptionally well. For a cast boolit the BC shouldn't be too shabby.

My next chance I'll reduce the charge slightly and see the effect. I'd like to keep the velocity on these babies as high as I can accurately push them and possibly be a candidate for longer ranges.

One other factor worth mentioning would be "seasoning the barrel". My experience has been one or two foulers is all that's needed but some claim more are needed. I find it unlikely that it would take 10 foulers before settling in a load, but who knows? I've never had cast boolits shoot that well over 200 yds yet. I guess next time I could shoot 10 at 200 yds on paper first then shoot 10 at 100 yds to see a difference.

Nels

Nels, I think less velocity is the answer.

In going back and rereading Paul's and my tirades and rants, Paul asked "What force acts on a bullet to reduce run-out" and I believe (and from what I'm gleaning from Paul's notes, from here and other threads) it's RPM. So by reducing muzzle velocity, we've reduced RPM, making the bullet more stable. I may be wrong about this as related to bullets, but my thinking comes from spinning masses like drivelines and the like.

That is a dandy looking bullet by the way. A sway away from the multi lube groove bullets of old, but from your description, the "bearing surface" is about 1/3-1/2 the bullet length? The other bullet is akin to my 458124 that I'm using in my 45-70.

What's your alloy?

RJ

Quoteit's RPM

Nope...

I was anticipating that argument. The primary reason that "nope" is the response is that the angular momentum of the bullet is the force that must be overcome by the "mysterious" force.

Also, of critical importance is the fact that the bullet is essentially spinning on an air bearing. As bearing materials go, there are precious few in the world that have less resistance than air. I discussed this at length with a couple of the nation's leading ballisticians AND some very savvy mechanical engineers. All agree without qualification that a bullet's rpms at impact - whatever the distance - are essentially exactly the same as they were when the bullet left the barrel. So there's no "slowing down" of the angular velocity or diminishing of the angular momentum of a spinning bullet - especially at ranges even as long as 2000 yds.

To prove this to yourselves (the collective "you") buy yourself a top or a toy gyro. Neither of those have "air" bearings. (The top's bearing is the surface on which it is spinning and the gyro's bearing is the metal frame in which it spins.) Nonetheless, observe their rotation two seconds after you start their spinning. It is indistinguishable from the initial velocity, and they don't have air bearings.

Now, consider how far a bullet would travel in 2 seconds - at 3000 f/s, it's A LONG WAY. Furthermore, it's initial rotational velocity (expressed as rpms) is on the order of 200,000. (A rifle with a twist rate of 1:12 will spin a bullet doing 3000 f/s at 180,000 rpms. One rotation in one foot - 3000 feet in one second - 60 seconds in a minute.) That's s bit faster than you can spin a top or a gyro.

Now consider how long it takes a bullet to travel from the 100 yd target to the 200 yds target - about 0.04 seconds for a "typical" hunting bullet. It's clear that the rpms don't slow in that interval of time, especially on an air bearing.

Even if the angular velocity did diminish enough to STOP the INCREASING deflection, for the bullet's "runout" to DIMINISH, some force would have to act on the bullet. In other words, once the bullets angular momentum stopped "pushing" it out of alignment with the line of sight, something would have to push it back in, in order for it to get smaller.

By the way, we haven't even discussed the "input" to the "system" from variance in bullet weight AND balance. The reason we haven't is because it is assumed to be negligible. Maybe that's a reasonable assumption with today's jacketed bullets and maybe not. 200,000 rpms invoke considerable momentum even to something as small in diameter as a bullet.

As an aside, the reason I was discussing rpms with expert ballisticians and engineers is that I was arguing with some nimrod that was trying to say that the reason bullets "lost accuracy" at "long ranges" was because they lost their gyroscopic stability (gs). They can't lose their gs if they're still spinning as fast as they were when they left the muzzle - and they are. What causes loss of "accuracy" at long ranges is the bullet transiting the sound barrier. There is considerable turbulence associated with crossing the sound barrier going in either direction. That's why long-distance target shooters - 600 yds and longer - want their bullets to have high ballistic coefficients - so they retain their super-sonic velocity longer. At least to the range of the target.

Paul