Blog Moved!

This blog has moved, and all contents copied, to http://www.flat5.net/.

This blogger.com (blogspot) blog will be deleted in August 2012.

Please adjust all links hereto to the new location at http://www.flat5.net/.

Thank you!

Enablement

My wife and I were on our way to one of our granddaughter's soccer games one recent Saturday. I was hungry and decided to stop for something at McDonalds but the drive-through was jammed so I parked and went inside.

In the crowd as I waited to order, I inadvertently stepped on someone's foot.

The mid 20-ish young man who owned the foot reacted instantly. He yelled at the affront and loudly demanded an apology. He pushed his red face toward me. I could see his balled-up fists and tensed arms.

In my pocket I had my licensed concealed carry, a Smith & Wesson model 36 snubby revolver, and I realized that, in the next few seconds, I might actually need to use it.

Several more thoughts went through my mind. I wondered what sort of a day this guy was having that had contributed to his instant, ready-to-fight outburst? I tried to ponder how many punches I would need to receive before a jury would find me justified in bringing out the weapon and shooting my assailant? And I wondered if he was also armed?

But the young man was correct: I had stepped on his foot.

"I'm sorry," I said. "You're right. It is crowded, I was trying to hurry, and I accidentally stepped on your foot. Please let me apologize."

Luckily for both of us -- and perhaps realizing he'd gone off the deep end rather abruptly -- he started calming down. He lowered his head and mumbled something about the crowd. I saw his fists relax.

In a calmer but still insistent voice he repeated, "But you did step on my foot."

I nodded. "Yes, I'm sorry."

The situation apparently defused, I moved to a different line to put some distance between myself and the now cooling young man and his friends. But the lines were going extremely slow and, considering his display, the starting time of the soccer game and the probable wait time for my order, I decided to abandon the effort.

I circled toward the exit keeping an eye on the young man but he didn't seem to notice my leaving.

Good, I thought as I crossed the parking lot, still glancing over my shoulder.

"This one's too busy," I told my wife as I got back into the car where she had been waiting. "We're going to pass another McDonalds a couple of miles down the road."

Half an hour later as we sat in our folding chairs and watched the soccer game, I ate the sausage and egg McMuffin from the second McDonalds and re-processed the events in the first.

I realized that, while the revolver in my pocket had provided the assurance that if I needed to defend myself I would be able to do so, I was pleased to see that my response had been to recognize who had been at fault -- myself -- and to try an apology first.

Whatever was contributing to the young man's ill mood had been assuaged by an honest apology ... and perhaps by a little common sense on his part.

The anti-handgun crowd claims that, if more people are armed, situations like this will escalate into gunfire more and more often. More guns equals more gunfire, they claim.

But the science fiction author Robert Heinlein said it well. In the fictional society he used in several books, he proposed that "An armed society is a polite society."

In my case, at least, I was pleased to find fiction becoming fact, and that I myself was in that latter -- polite first -- category.

My concealed carry, by virtue of the degree of violence I could unleash, had engendered the polite response.

I knew I could defend myself but, frankly, I'd rather not have to.

It's noisy, damn messy, I'm probably gonna hurt like hell from his punches or, worse, from his shots if he is also armed, the day is gonna be really screwed to say nothing of the coming weeks, months and probably years till it all gets sorted out in the courts, I'm going to have to spend a ton on attorney's fees to defend myself even if I'm completely exonerated, I'll have to live with whatever happens to the assailant, to the bystanders some of whom are kids, and ... Nuts!

I'd much rather find a peaceful -- a polite -- way out.

Because I knew that if my polite apology had not been accepted and the young man had chosen to attack me, I knew that I could -- and would -- defend myself.

It was possible.

I was able.

And I would.

How many punches would I receive first? I don't know.

Would a jury have agreed with my armed response? I can't tell you.

Would the other people at the store, called as witnesses in a case against me, have backed up my story, my viewpoint, my judgement? I can't say.

But I did have -- in my pocket, loaded and ready -- the ability to protect myself. And knowing it was there helped push me toward finding a peaceful solution first.

It enabled finding peace and what motivated that effort was not the threat of an armed response, but rather because I knew I could unleash violence, and that I'd really rather not -- the consequences are just too undesirable.

Because I was ready and understood what would happen, what could happen, and what would probably happen after that, I was highly motivated to find a peaceful solution.

My handgun gave me good reason to be polite.

100 Years - March 29th, 1911

How many people do you know who have created something that lasts more than 100 years? Although I have several acquaintances whom I admire for their accomplishments, it's doubtful that what they've created will still be in use after that much time.

But that's what John M. Browning did. The semi-automatic pistol design called the "1911" was accepted as the official sidearm of the Armed Forces of the United States of America exactly 100 years ago today, March 29, 1911.

And while the U.S. military recently moved on to the M9 for its primary sidearm, there continue to be several elite organizations within the military as well as various police departments that still carry the 1911 on a daily basis. It is also the favorite carry of many citizens and, in states where "open carry" may be seen, it is the most common firearm on someone's hip. And several official sports, not the least of which is the NRA's Conventional Pistol or "Bullseye" competition I write about, require it. There's even a recognized category of "Cowboy" shooters in the Single Action Shooting Society (SASS) which emphasizes dress and firearms no later than the 1890s who, nonetheless, compete with the anachronistic-to-the-sport 1911.

The 1911s popularity is not one of nostalgia. On the contrary, the firearm is a beautiful blend of form, function, power and utility that is rarely found in engineered products. It is that near perfection that has drawn the eye, and the wallet, for more than 100 years. John Browning's design does what it's supposed to do, and it does it extremely well.

Today, long after his patent has run out, you can purchase brand new 1911s in an enormous variety of styles, sizes and calibers. Plus, there's the aftermarket for replacement barrels, grip safeties, attachments for rails to say nothing of grip materials, colors and styles.

1911 Ball Gun
(Click to enlarge)

Here's my ball gun, an example of the 1911-A1 style that is arguably the most common to be found.

Mine began as a custom-built example in the 1960s with an Essex upper and lower. The source of the internal parts, the sights and grips used at that time are unknown but they have undoubtedly been replaced and refined many times over. I purchased the firearm well used a couple of years ago from a Bullseye shooting friend in Arizona. Most recently, I fired it in an EIC (Excellence In Competition) "leg match" in mid February where only service pistols are permitted. Prior to each such match, the trigger must be weighed and this February, the Air Reserve gunsmith who was doing this noticed this gun's manufacturer and, in particular, its low serial number (removed from picture).

"That's an interesting number," he said. "Where'd you get this?"

I explained it was made by an Air Force gunsmith in the 1960s and, after passing through several owners, it had come to me with uncounted rounds downrange looking battered and tired. I had packed it off to an expert in South Carolina for some TLC and a new Kart National Match barrel; "make it shoot accurately," was my instruction. When returned, this 1911 proved itself to be a tack-driver extraordinaire, as good as or even better than when it was new. So while my example isn't a century old, to the unaided or uneducated eye, few would recognize any difference from Browning's design except perhaps the target-grade sights and trigger.

It is a classic.

Compared to most of my other firearms, the stock 1911 is very light and has a center of balance inside the shooter's grip. It feels and acts like an extension of the arm and, when raised to shoot, most find the sights naturally aimed at the target.

The legislature of the state of Utah where John Browning lived and worked in Ogden recently adopted the 1911 as its official handgun.

1911 Wad Gun
(Click to enlarge)

My second 1911, the "wad gun", is a youngster in comparison and has two obvious modifications, the scope and the grips.

I bought it new from a Phoenix AZ gun store. It is a Springfield Armory MilSpec variant of the 1911-A1. Originally, the MilSpec model sported larger iron sights than the military-issued model.

But since then, there have been many visits to different gunsmiths, local and distant, where it has been tweaked, tuned, prodded, modified and then re-tweaked at least a dozen times.

The first set of changes included replacing the sights with a "rib" along the top of the slide and attachment of a "red dot" tube for aiming. This "scope" does not magnify the target. Instead, looking into the tube from the shooter's end, a red dot can be seen and when properly adjusted, the red dot will appear to sit on the target precisely where the shot will land. The red dot is visible only to the shooter -- there is no tell-tale laser beam between shooter and target. And the system is extraordinarily accurate.

The "trick" is, as with any handgun, aligning the sight to the aiming area and then moving the trigger straight back without disturbing the sight. This feat is a classic "easier said than done" and most shooters, myself included, train -- not "practice" -- for years to do so.

The second visible modification was the removal of the standard slab grips to be replaced by custom-fitting, right-hand only competition grips. Several manufacturers make these, each with their own specific "ours are best because" ideals. I selected a design from Nill-Griffe, similar to the ones seen here at this link. The custom fit makes for a more repeatable and, hence, consistent grip which is essential in Bullseye competitions. But those grips and the red dot sight obviously render the firearm no longer practical as a holstered sidearm.

My wad gun has become, you could say, a thoroughbred race horse. It performs to an amazing level of accuracy, the primary feat to be accomplished in Bullseye competition, but at the expense of utility. This 1911 is now a specialist, tuned for the specific job of high-precision target shooting.

Most recently, that same Air Reserve gunsmith mentioned above made two careful and surprisingly light passes with his best stone on cold steel to give my wad 1911 a "roll trigger". When squeezed -- not pulled -- the trigger feels like you are pressing on a soft pillow rather than breaking a glass rod. The original crisp trigger now feels somewhat like rolling a ball beneath your finger, hence the name.

There are many internal changes in addition to the trigger feel. For example, my "wadder," like the ball gun, has a Kart National Match barrel for accuracy. Also, the recoil spring between the top slide with the red dot and frame in the shooter's hand has been replaced with a twelve pounder instead of the standard eighteen. This is because, with the combination of the red dot and custom-made ammunition with 200 grain Lead Semi-Wad Cutter (LSWCs) bullets instead of the standard 230 grain Full Metal Jacket or FMJ projectiles, and because they are then propelled with 4.0 grains of Hodgdon's Clays (up recently from 3.8 to give better performance in cold weather) which I custom reload on a Dillon 650 progressive press a few evenings a month, the slide moves quite differently.

That is, when the wad gun fires, it has a completely different feel. The combination of red dot and lighter loads in the ammunition make it softer, much easier to manage in recoil and, therefore, to get back onto "the bull" at the center of the target for the next shot. And to the attentive ear it also has a completely different, almost liquid, sound as the action cycles in a fresh round.

When I do my part, whether firing at a target 25 or 50 yards away, when the trigger breaks, the hole appears exactly where the dot was sitting. The gun could, as the saying suggests, drive tacks. It's that accurate.

My 1911s are for shooting. As you can see in the photographs they are well used and, while not necessarily visual beauties, they are both highly functional. I shoot the wad gun more than any other firearm in my collection, but the ball gun with its exceptionally light feel and potent recoil, is a thrill to shoot well.

Some would say that thrill is a "guy thing". And while I wouldn't argue, let me add that there are many female shooters, very accomplished with this same firearm, who would take significant exception to such an attitude. Gripped correctly with the wrist and elbow locked stiff and hard, the recoil is not much more than that of significantly smaller and less potent calibers. It is completely manageable even by juniors. My granddaughter at age 12, after careful instruction on safety and operation which she then diligently followed in a well-supervised environment, had no problem with the recoil.

She grinned broadly with each of her shots from the ball gun.

But 1911s don't have to be black, scratched or ugly to shoot well.

My son, for example, has the pretty 1911 in the family.

His is a stainless steel, full-size series 80. It'll shoot FMJs as well as my wad loads and, while it's a factory-original Colt, well, it's a real Colt and it'll hold its own in any service pistol match.

Colt is the penultimate as well as the original manufacturer of the 1911. Their examples continue to be the most sought after 1911s today as well as 100 years ago. If you've got a Colt, you've got the real McCoy.

The look and feel of John Browning's 1911 design has made it one of, if not the most popular handgun designs in the world. I've got two at the moment but would like to have a Commander for concealed carry, one in 38 Special for center fire matches and maybe one of those elongated specials with the 6" barrel. Of course, each will be sent off for various tweaks, adjustments and personal customizations. And I love custom grips so, in addition to buying them, there are several tools and jigs available for those who'd like to make their own from fine woods or other materials.

How many 1911s is enough?

In a recent Top Shot episode, Brian Zins -- US national champion ten times (and still counting) -- said he couldn't even begin to count how many he had.

100 years today.

That's really something, Mr. Browning.

100 years.

Happy Birthday, 1911.

Calling The Line

Yours Truly in "The Tower"

"Attention! Attention on the line! Your three minute preparation time begins ... NOW!"

And so begins another relay.

At the recent Desert Mid-Winter competition in Phoenix, I took turns with Tony Silva calling the line. The Conventional Pistol portion spanned three and a half days starting with a Service Pistol 900 and just under 80 shooters. We ran two relays with an individual 900 and then team, EIC (Leg Match) or DR (Distinguished Revolver) matches almost every day.

For competitors who shoot all events and compete in teams as well, that's about 150 rounds, more or less, each day.

When not shooting, there's plenty of time to talk shop, get some lunch and clean guns.

But for those running the match, it's a different story.

As I discovered, when you "call the line", you become the person everyone goes to for answers.

"When are the scores going to be posted?"

"The Men's room is out of toilet paper."

"Where can I get some good Thai food?"

"What time is 45 Team today?"

It behooves you, therefore, to not only have a copy of the match bulletin immediately at hand, but also to have a couple of runners who can be directed to take care of the unexpected requests.

The Desert Mid-Winter competition is known to be well-run and we try to make it, as least for the line-calling portion, as much like Camp Perry as we reasonably can. In a sense, we view the competition as a training ground for those who will be making their first trip to Perry five months later in July.

So, to make sure I was "calling it straight", I reviewed the official rules and prepared a script. Hopefully it sounded very much like the one that will be used in the Nationals shortly after Independence Day.

But there are exceptions such as range alerts that need to be announced. Late last year, for example, a Mohave Rattlesnake was discovered underneath the firing line bench where Jason, a local shooter, was sitting. The snake was apparently a juvenile and, if you look it up, you'll find out this is one of the most dangerous rattlesnakes there is.

So this year we included a "rattlesnake alert" in range announcements. (None were seen nor heard during Desert Mid-Winter, thank goodness.)

But Desert Mid-Winter isn't Camp Perry. It's smaller, more friendly, and because we don't have the crush of competitors that Ohio will see, we can take a less hectic approach.

"Attention shooters. When we ask, 'Is the line ready?', raise your hand and holler if you are not. We will stop and give you the time needed. There's no hurry."

During one of the matches this year, for example, we had a gun that refused to function. We stopped to allow the shooter to change guns. Not having a spare, he was in a dilemma until his neighbor offered a spare. And while he was being briefed on how the sights were set, the Air Reserve gunsmith standing nearby took the disabled one to see if it could be repaired. Two targets later the original gun was back, repaired and ready to go back into competition. (Thank you, Dan!)

Calling the line also means keeping track of re-fires, when they are or are not allowed for a specific shooter within a match and how many total shots are to be scored (whether or not that many were actually fired). Of course, the individual shooters could also keep track of this but, in the interest of following the rules as closely as possible to be consistent with the Perry competition, the line caller takes on this responsibility.

"Shooters, if you have a malfunction and want an alibi, do not clear the malfunction. Instead, continue to hold your firearm with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and raise your hand. Someone will come and inspect your firearm and tell you what to do.

Range officers then assist by inspecting alibi claims before they are cleared, determining if the alibi is allowed or not. (For example, if the shooter forgets to click off the safety, no alibi is allowed.)

But above all, safety is the first and last concern.

Someone always checks the range to verify that it is clear.

"The range is clear. You may handle your firearms."

When someone shouts, "Not ready!", the line caller repeats it, tells everyone to keep their firearms pointed in a safe direction but to otherwise "Stand easy." And then tells the shooter with a problem, "Take your time and solve the problem safely. Take as much time as you need."

And before going downrange, there's the well-known, "Let's make the line safe. Magazines out. Cylinders open and empty. Slides back. Empty Chamber Indicators in place. Guns on the table."

This year we added, "When your firearms are safe, step back from the table." And then we watch and wait until everyone has moved back. (Sometimes it takes a reminder or two.)

Nonetheless, mishaps still happen.

Someone shot a hole in the firing line table but -- good for them -- they were following the safety rules and had the gun pointed in a safe direction, downrange. (Gary plugged and painted it and then did his normal job of refacing all targets before competition resumed the next morning. Thank you, Gary!)

And an early shot was fired, long before the Rapid Fire targets turned to face. Again, the gun was pointed in a safe direction so no damage was done.

Perhaps most alarming was a shot during a three minute preparation period.

"I thought I was dry-firing!"

Yes dear reader, you are absolutely right: That gun should not have been loaded!

But that's the very case the safety rules are designed to handle. That's why the rules are what they are. That is the kind of accident -- some will say "negligent discharge" -- that is most likely to happen. And because the shooter was otherwise following the rules and had his firearm pointed in a safe direction, no one was hurt.

Here are the NRA's rules:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction;
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot; and
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

Here's rule #1 again -- there's a reason it is #1.

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

 

The line caller's primary job, and that of every shooter on the line, is safety.

"Attention shooters. Anyone, I mean anyone, may call 'Cease Fire' at any time if there is an immediate danger."

I've been shooting Bullseye for several years in Phoenix and in various clubs around the US during my business and vacation travel. I've spoken with shooters who've been engaged in this sport for decades, and some who've been doing so for more than half a century and I've yet to hear of a single injury from a bullet*.

I hesitate to point it out lest I bring down a curse, but the fact remains that Bullseye, in spite of what the public might otherwise expect given the nature of what we do, is a remarkably safe sport.

"Shooters to the line. This will be the Timed Fire portion of the National Match Course, two strings of five rounds, twenty seconds per string.

"For your first string of Timed Fire, with five rounds ... Load!"

____________________
* Note: I have witnessed injuries, however, from a red dot that broke away from a 1911 in recoil and smacked the shooter's forehead, and I have heard of hand injuries from explosions presumed to be due to reloading problems -- a double-charge or a normal round fired after a squib has plugged the barrel.
Accidents do happen.
And, someday, you will be the one at fault.
Practice those rules; your life really does depend on it.

Red Oil

Another Bullseye enthusiast recently passed along his formula for "red oil". (This is *not* the same as the so-called "Ed's Red" which, by the way, is *not* named after me. I have no connection to either of these concoctions.)

Red Oil formula:

• Empty gallon can
• 8 oz Hoppes #9
• Can of STP
• Qt of 30W oil
• Fill with Automatic Transmission Fluid (2+ Qts)

Reportedly that will be more than you can use in a lifetime.

"Red Oil" smells a lot better than "Ed's Red", possibly because of the primary constituent of the latter, Kerosene, which is becoming hard to get.

At the moment, I'm still using MilComm's TW-25B but recently ran into a problem when the temperature suddenly dropped 20 degrees at a match. I found the slide on my 1911 very sluggish and, as the Slow Fire match was already in progress, didn't take the time to take it apart and add more TW-25B. Instead I just oiled the heck out of it and went back to shooting.

I'll try a heavier application of TW-25B for this evening's cool temperature event but, if the slide again becomes sluggish, I'll look into trying "Red oil" (as per the formula above).

If you're in Phoenix and want to try a pint, let me know. (That offer applies to both Red Oil and to a pint of Guinness.)

The Limits of Repeatability

We expect that if our scale says a bullet weighs 202.4 grains then that's what it weighs.

But, I expect you already know that's not 100% correct. There's accuracy versus precision and, somewhere in there is also tolerance.

But that's not what interests me at the moment.

Here's what does: If I weigh the same bullet twice, will I get the same answer? Will that 202.4 grain bullet read "202.4" tomorrow? And the day after?

That is repeatability.

I'm interested in this because I want to sort some bullets and, because I have so many to do (3000+), I want to be as efficient as possible on the first attempt. I don't want to have to go back and do it again.

So the question is, how many piles of bullets should I make?

Will the bullets I put in the "200.0 grain" pile today belong in that same pile tomorrow or will some of them get moved to the "200.5" pile?

If my goal is to have bullets that weigh "practically" the same amount for my long-line loads, what is the "practical" range of weight I should look for?

There, in a nutshell, is what I'm after. I want the range of weight, the tolerance, I can expect from one pile.

And it is the repeatability of the scale, its ability to measure a given weight from one day to the next and come up with the same answer, that is the issue.

Strategy

To find out how repeatable my scale is, here's what I decided to do.

I would take ten bullets that weigh slightly different amounts -- the batch of moly-coated 200 grain bullets I've been complaining about would be ideal -- and, one bullet at a time and in random sequence, I would weigh each of them. I would then mix up the 10 bullets and do it again. And then again until I had five weighings and then I would see how much I got for each bullet in each set.

The key question would be whether a given bullet would weigh the same each time or not.

Would the scale repeatedly weigh the same bullet the same each time?

Results

Here are the "raw" results.

 

Table One - Raw Results

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Set #1	202.4	200.4	201.8	195.2	197.1	200.1	203.1	198.1	195.4	198.3
Set #2	197.0	201.7	195.4	200.4	195.1	198.1	200.0	197.8	202.5	203.1
Set #3	195.0	195.4	198.0	203.1	202.5	200.1	201.7	198.2	197.2	200.5
Set #4	202.3	194.9	195.3	198.1	201.6	197.9	202.9	200.0	200.4	197.0
Set #5	202.9	200.4	201.6	195.3	197.1	198.0	202.3	197.9	200.0	195.2

 

The first row, Set #1 above, is the first weighings of the ten bullets, recorded from left to right. Remember that I then shuffled the bullets and did it again. That's Set #2. I continued this, shuffling the order of the bullets each time before re-weighing them. I stopped when I had completed five cycles, five sets.

Hence, five rows (separate weighings) of ten bullets (the columns). And because I shuffled the order of the bullets in each set, the weights appear in random order from left to right.

But this doesn't show me how much the same bullet weighed in each set. For that, I need the same bullet lined up from top to bottom over the five sets.

So I sorted each row into increasing weight, left to right. This put the bullets in order by weight.

Here's the result after the sort.

 

Table Two - Results in Bullet Weight Order within Each Row

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Set #1	195.2	195.4	197.1	198.1	198.3	200.1	200.4	201.8	202.4	203.1
Set #2	195.1	195.4	197.0	197.8	198.1	200.0	200.4	201.7	202.5	203.1
Set #3	195.0	195.4	197.2	198.0	198.2	200.1	200.5	201.7	202.5	203.1
Set #4	194.9	195.3	197.0	197.9	198.1	200.0	200.4	201.6	202.3	202.9
Set #5	195.2	195.3	197.1	197.9	198.0	200.0	200.4	201.6	202.3	202.9
Min	194.9	195.3	197.0	197.8	198.0	200.0	200.4	201.6	202.3	202.9
Max	195.2	195.4	197.2	198.1	198.3	200.1	200.5	201.8	202.5	203.1
Range	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2
Variation	0.15%	0.05%	0.10%	0.15%	0.15%	0.05%	0.05%	0.10%	0.10%	0.10%

 

"But wait," you might object, "if the scale is reporting a slightly different weight for a given bullet, isn't it possible that bullet #1 might sometimes weigh heavier than bullet #2 and then sometimes the opposite? That would mean that column 1, for example, might not actually be the same bullet each time!"

I would have to answer, "Yes, that's quite possible."

"But my goal," I would go on, "is to separate the bullets into different piles in a repeatable manner. If two bullets are so close that their weights shift their order from time to time, that variation would really put them into one pile."

Sorting the weights according to the scale's reading is really what I'm after, not the actual weight of the bullets.

Therefore, in this second table, if we read down each column vertically, we see what the scale said for something close to that weight.

This is where the repeatability, or lack thereof, shows up.

And from the above data, it therefore looks like the scale's repeatability for things weighing about 200 grains is going to be from 0.1 to 0.3 grains.

To make it easier to quantify this, I added rows for minimum, maximum, the range (maximum - minimum) and finally, the percent of variation (range / maximum).

The worst case variation (above) was 0.15%. That means that if I weighed a 200.0 grain bullet but then weighed a bunch of other things before re-weighing that same 200.0 grain bullet a second time, the two readings of the same bullet might vary by 0.3 grains (200 * 0.0015).

That's the number I'm after.

It means that, for 200 grain bullets, a difference of 0.3 grain between two bullets (or the same bullet weighed twice) could be entirely due to the scale.

Conclusion

"So what?"

Good question. Does this really matter?

For the scale I use, sorting to identical readings gives me bullets that are within 0.3 grains of each other.

My equipment won't let me be separate bullet by weight any better than that.

My sorting of the moly-coated bullets, for the first 1000 with 3000 still to go, has been into "whole grain" buckets. There is a 200 grain bucket, a 201 grain bucket, and so forth.

For my next round of testing, I'm going to load and test the bullets in the 200 grain bucket. From the above, I know those bullets vary from 199.85 to 201.15 grains, a range of 1.3 grains and, if they perform well, I'll know "that's good enough." (Actually, I'll know that's "more than good enough.")

But if they don't perform well and I suspect bullet weight variations might still be an issue, then I can sort them down to those that read (on the scale) EXACTLY the same, say 200.5 grains.

But no matter what I do, there's still going to be that 0.3 grains of non-repeatability. Those "identical weight" bullets may actually vary from 200.35 to 200.65 grains. Will that be good enough?

If so, I'll have my answer. I'll know how much weight variation is permissible and, in the future, I can sort bullets accordingly.

And if not, then I'll also have an answer, and that is that at least with some bullets, it doesn't matter how closely you match their weight. Some bullets will still just not perform at the long line.

So, my hope is that I'll discover there is a weight variation that can be tolerated at the long line.

Is "within 1.3 grains" good enough or do I have to go all the way to 0.3 grains?

I hope to find out.

And when I do, I'll know its number.

 

[Phew!] I'm beat.

How about we go and shoot up some targets?

All right!

Bullet Weight Distributions

I weighed 100 samples of each of two different 200 grain bullets. Here are the results and some comments.

Bullet Weight Distributions
(Click for bigger version)

First, let me describe the two bullets.

The Bear Creek -- blue line, the lower and broader of the two -- are labeled as molybdenum-coated 200 grain SWC (Semi-Wad Cutter) bullets with 0.452" diameter. I bought these back when lead was in short supply and almost no one had any bullets for sale. The "price was right" as they say and, from this chart, you can probably see why. They are very inconsistent in weight varying from 193 to 202 grains.

The second bullet, the pink spike, is from X-Caliber Bullets. The box says they are 200 grain LSWC (Lead Semi-Wad Cutter) bullets also with a 0.452" diameter. These are a much later and more expensive purchase. And as the chart clearly shows, their weights are much more consistent; although they range from 195 to 198 grains, in fact only 7 weighed 195 and only 3 weighed 198 grains. The remaining 90 weighed either 196 or 197 grains.

Tony Brong, in Electronic Scales Part II, said that by sorting bullets by weight, you then have "the opportunity to select a group of bullets to be culled solely for the long line; where their near identical weights will assist you in minimizing the potential of vertical stringing."

But how wide a deviation would Tony accept, two grains, one grain, half a grain?

So I called him.

"Tony, this is Ed. How are you?"

And after we exchanged pleasantries I asked, "Just how tight a weight grouping do you look for when making long-line ammunition?"

I was astonished when he said, "Plus or minus 0.1 grains."

Wow, that's tight!

After thanking Tony for sharing his expertise I looked at my two sets of data.

I had not sorted to a tenth of a grain. If I wanted to load the moly-coated bullets for the long line would I need to pick the most populace weight (201 grains) -- they were still in separate baggies, one for either weight -- and re-weigh that group to a tenth of a grain?

Now the old hands probably took one look at the chart and thought, "Forget the molys. They're no good for the long line. Save 'em for guests and fishing lines."

But I'm not that wise, not yet anyway.

Plowing ahead, I reasoned that if I took the 17 bullets that weighed from 201.0 to 201.9 grains and re-weighed looking for the 201.4 to 201.5999 grains (Tony's plus or minus 0.1 grains), I would "probably" get about 3 bullets (one-fifth of 17).

And since I had started with a sample of 100 bullets, that would mean that only 3% on average would fall within that range.

Only 3%?

That's awful!

The old-timers are nodding their heads now.

If the same logic is applied to the X-Caliber bullets, I should net 11% within that same plus-or-minus 0.1 grain weight range.

If you then calculate what I paid for long-line bullets, the higher cost of the box of X-Caliber bullets is multiplied about 9X whereas the cost of the cheaper bullets gets multiplied by a whopping 33X -- all of a sudden those "cheap bullets" leaped out to be way more expensive, for long-line bullets, than the X-Calibers.

That is, if I want to load to the level of precision Tony mentioned, I'd have to set aside 97% of the so-called cheap bullets for something else. With the better quality bullets, I would still be setting aside 89% but notice that I'll be making ammunition with 4X as many of the X-Calibers. That's a much better level of productivity.

While I don't think my shooting will be able to realize the full advantage of ammunition as good as what Tony produces, I do know that if I'm shooting poor ammunition and a shot goes astray, I won't know if it's the ammo or me that messed up.

With good ammo in a good gun, I'll know.

It's me.

 

Revised (11 January 2011)

 

The math (above) has been corrected.

I had erroneously figured the numbers assuming "plus or minus 0.1 grains" gave a range of 0.3, from 201.4 through 201.6 whereas, in fact, it is a range of 0.2, from 201.4 through 201.5999. That means the acceptance rate is worse than I originally wrote, one-fifth of 17 (3+%) instead of one-third (5+%), and similarly for the X-Caliber bullets. This error and the consequent numbers, computed therefrom, have all been corrected in the text.

Last night I began going through my supply of molys and sorting them by weight. That is going to take some time as I have about 3000 on hand.

For the first pass, I am sorting to "whole number of grains". That is, there are twelve buckets on the work table, one for each integral number of grains weight: 192, 193, 194 and so on through 203.

And using the 201 grain bucket (201.0 through 201.9 grains which can also be described as 201.5 plus 0.4 or minus 0.5 grains), I will make some test rounds to see how they perform at 50 yards.

If they perform well, I expect I can probably do the same with the 200 and the 202 grain buckets. (The remaining bullets will go in the recycle bin.)

If they perform less-than-well but show significant promise, then it may be worth an additional sort, to the "plus or minus 0.1 grain" which will then be loaded and tested.

Of course, it's quite possible that the 201.0 through 201.9 grain rounds will not group in which case the whole lot is no better than the dross they may not have been fully separated from.

Regardless, weighing and sorting that many bullets is a real time killer, and boring as the dickens. I did 1000 last night over a couple of hours but it'll take at least two more sessions like that for this first complete pass.

Stay tuned.