Thin paper v thick paper?

[MIEagle]

If I have a choice between using a thinner tracing paper with a larger diameter bullet or a thicker tracing paper with a smaller diameter bullet, which would be better, provided they both have the same nice, slip fit in the bore? I have a 50 ft roll of Staedler tracing paper that was fairly cheap and also part of a ream of Seth Cole 9# tracing paper that was fairly expensive. I will be purchasing a dual diameter bullet mould for my .40-60 Maynard and would like to get it right the first time. Thanks.
Tom

[Don McDowell]

With the dual diameter bullet, assuming the base diameter is close to the bore diameter, I would try the thinner paper first. Then maybe try the thicker paper.
I do think some of the dirt diggers that happen unexplained at longer distances come from using paper that is to thick.

[MIEagle]

With the dual diameter bullet, assuming the base diameter is close to the bore diameter, I would try the thinner paper first. Then maybe try the thicker paper.
I do think some of the dirt diggers that happen unexplained at longer distances come from using paper that is to thick.

Thank you for your reply. However, I'm trying to decide whether to order a bullet mould measuring .394, base .400 using the Seth Cole or .396 and base .402, using the thinner Staedler paper, following the suggestions that DT made on this forum, patching the base to .001 over groove diameter. Thank you.

[Don McDowell]

I think it depends a lot on the chamber your rifle has. In my 44 and 45 dual diameter bullets, the base diameter is .002 under bore, and I patch those with Seth Cole 55w.
The 40 I ordered at .400 on the base as the .400 bullet I've been shooting seems to work well. Unfortunately I haven't had time to wring the bullet out yet, but in what little I did shoot it, it did show some promise.

[MikeR]

I would vote for the 9# paper, only because it is in a ream. I find it easier to handle than rolled up paper. It keeps curling up while I'm trying to cut it. Frankly, either paper will work very well. Last year I ordered a bullet that casts .395" because the .396 was very snug (good) but I worried that I might wrinkle a patch trying to load quickly during a match. The bullet was a little loose wrapped with Seth Cole paper but shot very well. I have some loads wrapped with 9# onion skin but I have not had a chance to shoot them. I'm sure it will work very well too, they fit very well.

Get your mould cut to fit which ever paper will be easiest to get in the future. Which ever way you go, I'm sure you will get good results.

[mherth]

I’ve always wondered about ordering a mould based upon the thickness of your paper. It seems like very few of us have the ability to measure to the nearest .001, I know I don’t. Even bullets as cast vary somewhat, and of course alloys that may or may not be what you think they are. Paper is cheaper than moulds, and paper is not always consistent. There is no magic match, so spend more time at the range learning what works better with what you already have. That’s my process, but you won’t find my name in the winner’s circle. I just try to improve each year, and I think shooting skills are more important than load development.

[MIEagle]

I’ve always wondered about ordering a mould based upon the thickness of your paper. It seems like very few of us have the ability to measure to the nearest .001, I know I don’t. Even bullets as cast vary somewhat, and of course alloys that may or may not be what you think they are. Paper is cheaper than moulds, and paper is not always consistent. There is no magic match, so spend more time at the range learning what works better with what you already have. That’s my process, but you won’t find my name in the winner’s circle. I just try to improve each year, and I think shooting skills are more important than load development.

My rifle is a C. Sharps 1875 in .40-60 Maynard. C.S told me their bores are .403 and grooves are .408. The chamber cast measured .40835 on the lands but we didn't have the anvils to measure the grooves. I'll go with .403. Measuring paper is very difficult so what I did was measure a .443 slick that I use in my .45-70 with both papers, measuring the new diameters and back out the .443. So, as stated earlier, I'm wondering whether a thinner paper is better that a thicker paper. I haven't had problems with the rolled paper curling up on me. Thanks for the replies.

[MikeR]

mhearth; You are correct in thinking, measuring paper is more of an art than science. And there I no magic fit. There is a whole range of sizes that will work correctly. For target work the patch must hold the bullet centered in the bore. This can be as loose and able to free fall through the bore to requiring considerable pressure from the thumb to seat the bullet and cartridge. As long as every bullets is the same there should not be a problem. If you have bullets mixed where some are tighter than other you are asking for more vertical.

MIEagle; Wrapping twice around a bullet or mandrel is the best way to get an idea what your paper thickness is. Normally I don't concern myself with the groove diameter. When the powder goes off, the bullet will fit the grooves perfectly. But in your case, if the bore diameter is truly .403 and the groove diameter is .408, then I would go with the thinner paper. My concern is, a .396" bullet with even the 9# paper will not fit the bore closely. A .396 bucket wrapped with .006" of paper will be .001" below bore diameter.