Did I say Chambers at .454? Cause I meant to say bore size (meaning barrel).......
Might be the Shiner Bock buildup
With that in mind where I was going is why shoot .451 slugs and why have Bernie reinvent the mould?
I'm just trying to figure out the reason (and I'm sure you have a goodun).
I am busy photoshopping yer avatar.....RIGHT NOW
You like pink or ivory colored frillies?
Hoof,
You actually did say "bore" but I have been talking chamber and reamer size. It can apply to either, I am concentrating on the cylinders.
There is method to my madness. All of my Uberti 1860s (6 of them) have chambers from Ø.4505 to Ø.4515 and they work now. Even if they were Ø.454 they might still have to bump up to “fit most bores.”
Of course I have measured mine, I also ran a poll about a year ago which pretty much agrees with my results. My bore diameters run from Ø.4520 to Ø.4570. I have measured one pair with bore casts at the muzzle and breech ends using cerrosafe, those are the ones I used for my models. I verified those measurements and measured the other barrels using inside micrometers with anvil pins that fit in the grooves. The slow twist makes this easier. The land diameter is tighter and runs Ø.4400-Ø.4420. The land diameter is easy to measure with pin gages.
I am perfectly happy with the performance I get now with either ball or bullets with my C&B pistol barrels. Those balls and bullets get cut and swaged into a Ø.451 chamber. If I ran a Ø.454 or larger bullet I would have to open my chamber bores. Which I could do but is it necessary? Follow my logic for a minute.
Most people using the R&D cylinders are probably using Ø.452 bullets in .45 cases. If you pull a loaded Ø.452 with a kinetic bullet puller and measure it I would be willing to bet you nuggets to biscuits they will measure less than Ø.452 when pulled. When a soft lead (less than 9BHN) bullet hits the rifling it doesn’t just engrave the bullet, it pushes the lead around (obturates) and the bore is filled. Slug a barrel by driving a bullet or ball through and you will see it. Measure it across the high points and it will measure the bore diameter.
They bump out like this:
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Cartridges/0003.jpgSo, now the rest of the story… Why Ø.451? Because I want the taper. And so did the original designer. He may have done so to keep the chamber diameter the same as it had always been. My 148 year old 1860 has chambers that measure Ø.4505 to Ø.4515, wow it seems that Uberti got that dimension right.
Taper will aid in chambering, extraction and head spacing , and if done correctly will allow good chamber sealing with minimal resizing of the base necessary afterwards. Most of us know that “straight wall” chambers are actually tapered. If I have a chamber with a mouth of Ø.458 I want my case base to be Ø.456 which is actually very tight, but I am limited by the amount of metal I have and because the commercially available shells. But I can reliably run a tighter fit with a bit of taper and on my cartridge as well. Turns out this is the original specified base diameter. Once again wow, who knew?
How much taper on the shell? A case neck of Ø.454 or larger isn’t much of a taper. The Original designers agreed, they made their cartridge with a Ø.450 neck. I’m actually pushing the diameter up since they are my pistols and I control the ammunition.
Remember the dimensioned sketch from yesterday? The Ø.452 diameter on the chamber is actually is .010” ahead of the end of the chamber. The diameter doesn’t hit Ø.451 for another .185” in front of the case mouth. This is almost to the ogive of the bullet, I just get a close fit in the driving band area in front of the lube groove.
I’m making my theoretical case neck Ø.452 and and as I said before if necessary I have a station on my reloading press I can add that Lee loaded sizing die and dial it in. So I think I want a Ø.452 cast bullet and I will take it to Ø.451 at loading. As you pointed out there is still a lubricating step after loading. You have experience with that, does it do anything to the diameter? I can squeeze the diameter down if it is too tight at Ø.451 and if it is too much trouble I always have chucking reamers in .0005” increments in those ranges.
So why would I want Bernie to “reinvent” the mold? Here’s why:
Bernie’s current design (I’m sure you’ll recognize this)
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c91/buckoff123/100_1148.jpgWhat I want is similar to your modified “Remington” bullet and I also want it in 225gr to be the same as the military loads. I also want a flat meplat. However I am a lube hound now and I want a lot. So I need a bullet in the diameter I want , so I might as well get the lube I want:
http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/Bullet2.jpghttp://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/1860%20Conversion/44Coltjpg.jpgIf I am going to be accused of having the logic of a smokiless shooter, then I want Pink…if I am going to swish around it might as well be girly…
Are you shooting Piettas?
Regards,
Mako