Lead ?

[Kurt]

Well, I came back to read this all again more than once. I've shot the Cody a good deal. Still getting lead rings but the mold I have does not give me an option for exposing a lube groove so not gonna worry over it till I get another mold. The rifle shot excellent anyway; like Kurt said cleaning does not indicate any leading issue. Case closed for now – with no ill effects.
=====
So why the re-reads... well I have two Ballards just off to John Taylor for reline and still mulling over the transition I want to ask for in one of them, a 40-65.

Kurt, if you see this tell me if I'm wrong - I'm interpolating from the last cast image you posted, and your comments, (where you saved your oval throat with the 4 degrees/1.5 degree compound ‘transition/leade’), that your Manson solution gives a more versatile chamber. And, if not an ‘improvement’ over the Browning BPCR, it's not a detraction either.

Would that be correct to say?
Steve.
The throating reamer saved my barrel from replacing it. I did not buy this rifle new or I would have returned it to the dealer. using a throating reamer to take out the 45 degree chamber end can make or break a rifle's accuracy if the reamer is not a proper fit to an existing chamber and how it is used. I hesitate lending my reamers for that reason. I gladly will lend them and I have several times but there is always a chance that the reamers made for my chambers will not be proper for someone else's chamber.
Yes you are correct the throating of the Browning greatly improved it's accuracy.
Steve there are a lot of rifles out there that just shoot lights out with that 45 degree. But I have had problems that I just would not put up with, like heavy leading of the throat and down the bore. The flat funnel transition, what I call a lead bullet throat eliminated those problems.
The only rifle caliber that never changed the chamber is the .22 rimfire as far as I know.

Obviously by my asking you can tell I like it the traditional flatter transition.

The 40-65 chamber reamer that John Taylor uses will essentially give the 45 degree transition. So, if I wanted to go with the one I'm favoring I’ll have ‘some’ additional cost. If my assumption is wrong, I’ll gladly save the extra cost for a throating reamer. If its right, I’d gladly spend the money to get what I “think” is more versatile. One thing I didn’t understand earlier in the thread – probably because I didn’t know the term or implications and am not used to reamer diagrams.. . When you said that your CPA 44-1/2 Stevens chambered in .44-75 Ballard “…will not except a GG bullet unless I have a mould made that will cast a .399 ring bullet”. What is a ring bullet and would you mind educating me how that plays in with the transition angle, or if it even does?
The .399 is a typo, it should have been .4399. My .44-75 has a very tight neck. The bore of the .44-75 is .438" and the normal groove depth is .446" My chamber case neck wall is .464" and it actually turned out to be a .4628" when they ground the reamer. The brass I use has a .011" wall thickness at the mouth that just gives me room for a .4408" or .441" patched bullet to fit the case and have the case chamber. A .446 GG bullet would expand the case mouth to much that it will not chamber.
In the past they also made ring bullets, or what is called now GG, that could be loaded in the case that is at bore diameter or slightly larger that would still let the round be loaded. And when the charge goes off the bullet would expand filling the grooves like a bore or under bore diameter bullet would. In my case I would have to have a mould made with out a bore riding step on the ogive at .440".
Below is one of those bullets I'm talking about.

Btw, I've decided on the 40-65 (over the 40-82 Silhouette) as my BP debut rifle/caliber. Had enough fun this summer with others shooting BP that I decided it was time to get my feet wet. Actually have a 40-63 and 38-55 standing in line too.

Thanks a lot Steve!!!