I've mostly used the factory scirocco bonded 180gr in the 300rum. Anything on a deer I hit with it had a 1-1/2" hole through it, just a lot more excessive internal damage if you hit something solid.
661 Oil Test 32:1 vs 40:1 vs 50:1 ?
- Thread starter redbull660
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
180 grain cast in in the .30-06...
I use bullets of the same construction in everything, handguns or rifles... cast lead.
They always kill what I point them at... (shrug)... don't see no need to pay for fancy copper-condomized projectiles.
I mean... c'mon... is a fancy $5.00 bullet gonna' make something more dead?? Seriously??
*
Sw
Swift scirocco has always been a ***** bullet as far as accuracy goes for me so I stopped trying to get them to work.
Running very rich. I have a lawn boy that's has a completely bare piston. It has a fixed jet carb and runs pig rich all the time.
Congrats, you have put polish on a turd. When that piston cracks and drops a piece of skirt, you will have more polishing to do.Got this buffed out and used it
After.
Cast bullets and runs 026's.. it's make sense now..your a Luddite!
redbull660
Addicted to ArboristSite
running some h1r 45:1 then some 800 45:1 with 41" bar...
smokey7
jack of a lot ace of a few
I dont know where the mobil 1 racing thread went i cant find it. Either way the case of oil i got that costed me a arm and a leg got given to my dad for part of his fathers day gift. I couldnt justify doing much else with it. Plus i needed to get my day to stop running tcw3 crap oil. I get tired of rebuilding his saws from it. I am sorry for making myself look foolish to all.
Hmmmm...... can't figure how you make the leap from today's bullet casting to Luddism??
Getting a cast bullet to perform in a modern cartridge rifle using modern smokeless powder requires a much higher level of technological and ballistic understanding (especially internal ballistics) than stuffing store bought, copper-covered bullets in brass. Even casting the bullets themselves requires some understanding of metallurgy... as it's an alloy, not pure lead, that's used in smokeless powder cartridges. And then you need an understanding of how changes made to the alloy relate to pressures (internal ballistics), the requirements of bullet lubrication as pressures and velocities increase, proper sizing, the effects of heat treating and aging, etc., etc., etc... Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "cast lead" in the original post... maybe I should'a used "cast lead-based alloy".
There ain't anything "old school" about using cast bullets in modern smokeless powder cartridge rifles, jacketed bullets have a longer history with them... over half a century longer. A Luddite would be stuffing lead round balls over black powder in iron tubes... and jacketed bullets over smokeless powder is closer to Luddism than cast bullets over twenty-first century smokeless powder.
Fancy (so called) high performance jacketed bullets?? It's about the magic... ain't it??
*
Any time difference? I'm at work and can't watch without stopping to buffer.
No, no magic involved..it's just I can't drive my fancy copper coated bullets much faster hence the shoot much flatter and kill much more decisivly. And cast technology is pre 20th century..give me a break..
And I cast my own bullets for certain cartridges like that 45 colt.
Really?? In the .30-06?? How much faster??
I believe you'd better investigate 21st century cast bullet technology before you make yourself look more the fool... advancements in stronger alloys and various powder coating have put jacketed velocities well within reach.
By-the-way, the jacketed bullet was invented in 1882, and by 1886 it was standard military issue for the French Lebel rifle... that makes your "fancy copper coated bullets" also pre 20th century technology.
While jacketed bullet technology has mostly been stagnate over the last several decades (except for different variations on decades old technology), cast technology has advanced beyond anything dreamed possible just a couple of decades ago.
Give me a break... you're the one with beliefs and ideas founded in the past... it ain't me.
*
Oh... one more thing bwalker,
A "flatter shooting" bullet does not make a better killer... but it does allow the shooter to be less of a rifleman.
Extreme long range shooting was accomplished long before the jacketed bullet... but it does require the shooter to be extremely knowledgeable in the field of exterior ballistics (i.e., an extremely good rifleman).
*
A "flatter shooting" bullet does not make a better killer... but it does allow the shooter to be less of a rifleman.
Extreme long range shooting was accomplished long before the jacketed bullet... but it does require the shooter to be extremely knowledgeable in the field of exterior ballistics (i.e., an extremely good rifleman).
*
Trx250r180
Saw polisher
Can someone explain the difference between 2r on the oil labels ,and 2 T ? this mobil stuff has a T ,can i mix it with 2R ,or have to drain everything bone dry first ?
The various miltary of the world would disagree and in spades.
It's funny that you equate alloy in cast bullets as high tech... it's not.
2r is dyed red, 2t is undyed. Same stuff.
Trx250r180
Saw polisher
Thanks sir ,i see why they never sold the T then ,they could not see it with no dye
LOL ‼
Again, you show you somehow believe you know what you're talking about... when you don't have a friggin' clue.
The reason various military of the world use full metal jacketed bullets has absolutely nothing to do with ballistic superiority or "killing" ability. It was because of Declaration #3 of the 1899 Haque Convention which outlawed bullets used in international warfare that would expand, flatten or otherwise deform inside the human body. The easiest, quickest, least complicated, and least expensive way to conform was to encase the bullet in gilding metal. Of course, that was only possible if your military was using smokeless powder... because black powder required soft (near pure) lead bullets. Gilding metal encased bullets also allowed the use of tracers, incendiary rounds, steel cores which could penetrate armor, and more.
There was only one major power that refused to ratify the Declaration... guess which one and why.
It was the United States that refused... because some parts of the U.S. military were still using the black powder .45-70-500 Government cartridge with a soft cast lead bullet (with an effective nose-first killing range of 3500 yards). The military was also using the .30 Army (.30-40 Krag) at the time, with a jacketed soft nose bullet and smokeless powder, but it was proving to be problematic and less than ideal as a "killer", especially at extended ranges (and could not match the effective range of the 500 grain cast lead .45-70 bullet)... not until the higher-velocity .30-03 cartridge (forerunner to the .30-06) did the U.S. abide by the Haque Convention Declaration #3.
The flatter shooting .30 Army cartridge made range estimation less critical, but did not make for a better "killer".
So... exactly on which of those two points would the various military disagree me??
The most devastating projectiles ever used on the battlefield were those soft lead hunks thrown during the American Civil War... they would tear limbs clean off. The Hague Convention sought to reduce the devastating effectiveness, not to increase it... the full metal jacketed bullet is a more humane wounder, not a better "killer".
Get your facts straight...
*
The US never signed the Hague convention and is currently using open tip match bullets AKA hollow points in combat.
I have shot animals with bullets nearly identical to those used in the civil war.. the damage is paltry compared to something like a Berger VLD.
You can add bullets to the list of subjects you don't have a clue about..
I have shot animals with bullets nearly identical to those used in the civil war.. the damage is paltry compared to something like a Berger VLD.
You can add bullets to the list of subjects you don't have a clue about..
Come on boys!
