Canadian Airgun Forum

Part1: Finding the size and weight of the cast projectiles and getting ready to shoot.

After a successful casting session I had enough samples from each of the eight cavities to start some testing.



The first step was to compile the information about size and weight. I quickly discovered that all the pellets were more or less “out of round”. For comparison, I checked the .22 pellets that were cast from the Noe Mold. There was some variation on the diameter of the pellets ranging from a minimum of .220” to a maximum of.225” but the roundness was only off by .001.

The castings I made (being solid projectiles without a hollow skirt) are all on the heavy side. The Exact Redesigned Monster (13.43gr) and the JSB Match Beast Diabolo (16.20gr) are examples of heavy pellets. From the eight models produced with my mold three fall between the Monster and the Beast then the balance of projectiles are all heavier than the Beast.

This is the list of projectiles by side (first number) and cavity (second number): 1-1 is the nose up/tail down pellet, 1-2 is the bullet, 1-3 is the other nose up/tail down pellet, 1-4 is the nose down/tail up pellet (cut with the HSS cutter). 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 are variations of the nose down/tail up pellet (also machined with the HSS cutter).

For the specifications list, I am showing the extreme deviations taken from several samplings on two axes (on the parting line and perpendicular to it). This shows what is the worst “out of roundness” for a whole type and not for a specific projectile. The weight is an average.



1-1: Extreme deviation on roundness .174-.182 Weight 13.6 grains

1-2: Extreme deviation on roundness .180-.196 Weight 20.8 grains

1-3: Extreme deviation on roundness .175-.186 Weight 14.7 grains

1-4: Extreme deviation on roundness .179-.190 Weight 17.5 grains

2-1: Extreme deviation on roundness .174-.181 Weight 16.5 grains

2-2: Extreme deviation on roundness .175-.183 Weight 18.2 grains

2-3: Extreme deviation on roundness .174-.181 Weight 16.7 grains

2-4: Extreme deviation on roundness .171-.187 Weight 15.9 grains

From the measurements obtained it was easy to realize that none could be shot as they were cast.

Luckily I had a series of pellet resizing dies already prepared. (See the post for more details.)
topic93772.html

Cavity 1-1 was not too far out, so a few quick passes through the small tube was enough to bring the pellet to .177”.



At least I had one pellet style (nose down/tail up from Cavity 1-1) ready for a shooting test.

R-Gun Pete

Part 2: First shooting test and more resizing work.

Since I have a limited supply, the same methodology as the one used in the resizing exploration post mentioned before would be applied. Shooting in my curtained pellet trap, the same projectile would be reused a few times. All shots are taken offhand standing up at a distance of 25 feet. The rifles used for the tests (Crosman Quest, Daisy 853C and CZ 200T) have their sights set for my regular pellets and I don’t want to change them, consequently I need to find the right sight picture to get the point of impact where it should be on the target.

When I was experimenting with resizing .22 Crosman pellets into .177 slugs, it was discovered that the Crosman Quest 500 springer liked projectiles measuring exactly .177” so that was the one for that first series of tests.

For cavity 1-1 pellet, I shot a first time at a blank sheet of paper to compare point of aim and point of impact.

To confirm my guess, I had another three shots at a paper bullseye then for the fifth I was ready for the reactive target (which is 1.25” in diameter with a .300” hole in the centre). I nearly got the pellet through the middle hole but not quite. Part of it hit the face and flattened but the sheared portion went through the hole and punctured the masking tape.

The picture below shows the paper and reactive targets as well as two other views of the deformed projectile. Another flattened 1-1 pellet (in this case this one has just hit the reactive target somewhere on its face) is shown beside an unfired pellet for comparison.



Cavity 1-2 is a bullet and is oversized enough that a new four-piece compactor was considered. The one built in my resizing exploration was compressing from .22 to .184 and I would prefer to have a compactor that would ideally bring the bullet to .177”.

From what I learned when I fabricated the first compactor I was able, in respect to the sliding tolerances, to make a better one but, unfortunately, I fell short of my goal of .177” and after compression my bullet measured .181”. Nevertheless it was not too bad because it only needed to go through the small resizing tube to bring it to .177”.

I also machined a new pusher pin that had a smaller extension at the end so the pressure would be applied at the center of the bullet tail when going through the tube.

The picture below shows the sequence. The cast bullet is compacted to .181” then in the second stage is resized to .177”. On the right there is a zoom on three finished bullets.



From that point, I followed the same procedure as previously, one shot on a blank sheet followed by a few shots on a paper target then a shot at the reactive target.

The masking tape was again perforated because most of the bullet went through the middle hole. Part of it was shaved off by the edge.

At 20.8 grains, it is the heaviest projectile of the series and I wanted to see what would happen if I shot it at the big aluminum disk used as a target for my .380 and .350 lead balls. The bullet flattened nicely and toppled the big disk in slow motion.

In the image below, the bullseye on the reactive targe is on the left and the flattened bullet is shown at the top right. Since pellet 1-1 was already resized, it was also shot at the big aluminum disk and the result is on the lower right.



The tests for cavities 1-3 and 1-4 are coming next.

R-Gun Pete

Part 3: Continuation of test with the Crosman Quest 500 springer.

For cavity 1-3 pellet, I tried to make a fake skirt with a recess to ensure that the edge was flat and even. Shooting them confirmed that it worked but, as it was fairly time consuming and that the final shape barely looked like the original, I decided to minimize the transformation and just resized the pellet.

Finally the difference of performance between both versions was not noticeable and consequently I went with the simplest option.

The picture below shows the hollow skirt version on the left and comparison shots of both versions on the right.



Cavity 1-4 of the mold produced an oversized pellet but, unlike the bullet, the compactor was not necessary and the three resizing tubes were enough to bring it down to .177”.

The picture below shows on the left the resizing of pellet 1-3 and on the right, the sequence for pellet 1-4.



For pellet 1-4, I tried different depth of recesses in the tail and also to leave it plain. The results obtained, again, showed negligible differences.

The following picture shows the resized pellet on the left, the original on the right and below three versions of the skirt after being shot.



The pellets from side number one of my machined mold have been tested with the break barrel rifle. Side number two will be covered in the next part.

R-Gun Pete

Part 4: Testing the four variations from the second side of the mold.

The testing was getting easier because on that side all the pellets were small enough to only require one resizing die. Furthermore, I needed only a single shot on paper before shooting the reactive target.

In the following picture, the die is shown with a resized pellet on the left and an original on the right as well as a shot pellet (or more) below.
(2-1 on left, 2-2 at centre and 2-3 on right).



For some reason, the sprue cutter was slightly deforming the base of pellet 2-4 skirt but it was enough to see that it was not round. Since it was going through the resizing die I made another pusher pin with a pointed tip to expand the base of the tail.

This picture shows the die and both pins, with two resized samples on the left, the original pellet from cavity 2-4 on the right and a shot pellet below.



The reason the shot pellet in the previous picture was shaved was because it was practically a bullseye.

When I shot the reactive target the pellet skimmed the edge of the hole before perforating the masking tape.



This completes the testing of the cast projectiles measuring.177” with the Crosman Quest 500.

At this point, I am satisfied with the results. I still have to test two other rifles so it is not finished yet.

R-Gun Pete

Part 5: Testing with the Daisy 853C.

Based on my previous experience, the Daisy needs.175” to shoot properly. Using the dies already made, I started preparing some pellets from cavity 1-1.

I quickly discovered that being short blocks the resizing hole in them is not tapered very much. The pellets were difficult to insert and even after a few passes they were still difficult to line up. After making a few pellets for testing, I realized it was more time consuming than I wished. Because I found that the blocks with a base was a bit cumbersome, I decided to machine a new set of single piece dies that would be longer (to allow an improved tapered path).

The Daisy has a peep sight so it took me several shots before finding the right sight picture to get ready for the reactive target. I had one hit on the outside edge and the other was a semi-bullseye because the pellet was sheared in half.

The following picture shows, on the left, a couple of resized pellets (dimpled and plain tails) with fired pellets and one original 1-1. On the right, there is the reactive target with the sheared pellet and an unmodified one.



Working with the Daisy 853C has been an exercise in frustration. The first single piece resizing block I machined was producing pellets closer to .176” than .175” and the Daisy was not able to spit them out. The situation forced me to make a second one and this time they were just slightly over .175” but not right on. If worked with some but not all and any resistance felt when closing the bolt was a bad omen and a warning of an incoming jam. I knew I would need a .174” die for the CZ so, for my third attempt I tried for it, but I fell short of my goal and ended up with a die making slightly under .175” projectiles. For the Daisy, it finally worked fine for all the pellets and the bullet.

The picture below shows the dies with the projectiles prepared for testing.



The Daisy is a bit of a wimp compared to the Quest and the CZ. It works very well with the regular diabolo pellets at 10 metres and it is normally a tack driver but with these heavy projectiles it was not at its best.

Let’s say I had all kind of problems and it took a lot of time to collect impacted samples of each type. Because the curtains in my trap were getting frayed sometimes I lost a pellet shot at the paper target before I could shoot it at the reactive target, at other time I reached the point where I hit the reactive target but the projectile bounced back out of the trap and couldn’t be found.

I am not sure what is wrong with my garage floor but if a pellet falls there, it just disappears… like in a black hole.

With the springer I was able to retrieve the impacted projectile in the box after the reactive target was hit. It might be that the single stroke pneumatic rifle is weaker and the pellet rebounds out instead of continuing into the trap but I lost a lot of flattened pellets.

Also in the course of all those tests, I discovered that I had better results with shooting some of the pellets in the reverse direction. The nose of those cast pellets was at the bottom of the cavity and the tail cut by the sprue plate, furthermore during resizing of the projectile, the pressure was applied on the tail to push it through the die and some thin flashing of lead was produced. Flattening the base of the tail would add another step to an already lengthy process and I wanted to verify if leaving the thin flashing would make any difference. It seemed that the slightly uneven skirt added an unwanted variable but, when turned around with the cast nose acting as the tail, the result became more predictable.

I was finally able to collect enough samples of fired projectile to cover the whole range of cavities of the mold.

The picture below shows the recovered pellets shot at the reactive target. The ratio of neatly flattened projectiles is a bit less than with the springer. For the bullet (1-2), due to its weight, I had to hold over so much that I was losing sight of the target and the overcompensation made it hit the wire (the indentation is seen in the nose). So to the exception of one of the tested 1-1 which was sheared when going through the hole, all the other sheared pellets were peripheral hits.



This complete the evaluation of the projectiles with the Daisy 853C. The next part will cover the results obtained with the CZ 200T.

R-Gun Pete

Part 6: It is time to see how the pellets will behave with a PCP.

During the .22 pellet to .177 slug conversion, it was discovered that the CZ 200T liked projectiles that were exactly .174” in diameter.

The resized ones I made for the Daisy were smaller than .175” but bigger than .174” so to avoid an extra operation I decided to give it a try.

No luck! A plugged barrel confirmed that it should be .174” and nothing else. An extra step through one of my previously made die would be necessary after all.

Once the size issue was out of the way, it should be said that the CZ 200T, even if it is a non-Pal rifle, is the one from the three that has the more oomph. The damages to the curtains, previously started during the .177 slugs testing, were further increased and caused more projectile disappearances when shooting at the paper target.

I also experienced the same bouncing back from the reactive target as with the Daisy. The reasons might be different (low power for the Daisy and a bit too much for the CZ) but the result was that, in a lot of cases, the flattened pellet could not be found in the box and it took me a fair amount of time to collect all the samples I wanted.

Now that the explanations are out of the way, I can talk about the actual testing. I was curious to see how the bullet would perform in the CZ so it went first. As expected, due to the weight, it was shooting low. After a few other shots on a paper target I was ready for the reactive one. The masking tape was perforated but it was not a complete bullseye.

The picture below shows, on the left, the bullet (1-2) nicely engraved by the rifling, in the centre, the quasi bullseye made by the bullet and, on the right, the rifling on pellet 1-4 which is the other oversized projectile.



Preparing a testing session takes some time because to bring the castings to the size preferred by the CZ there are multiple steps.

As seen below, several dies are necessary to resize the projectiles and avoid too much deformation. This is the same sequence as for the Daisy but the extra block on the right is the .174” resizing die.



Eventually enough flattened projectiles were recovered to complete the evaluation with the PCP rifle.

I had an occurrence when a pellet got stuck to the surface of the reactive target and I added the image to the display of the impacted samples.



This completes the series of tests.

In conclusion, I am satisfied with my project. It is not perfect but it works for what I intend to do with the projectiles cast from my mold. If I had to restart the process and machine another mold, I would make sure that the resulting castings would be undersized and I wouldn’t worry too much about deflection of the cutter when cutting the cavities. That is the few thousands of inch past the calculated cutting depth that is causing the out of roundness.

I know that the distance in my garage is not very long (25 feet) but I was surprised to see that all my non-Pal rifles were able to handle those heavy weight projectiles with more or less holdover and hit an intended target.

On paper targets, I was able to confirm that all the projectiles were hitting perpendicular to the surface because I could see the round trace made by the impacting tip and definitely there was no hint of keyhole.

Considering how much time it takes to prepare the projectiles for a shooting session, I will certainly not stop buying commercial pellets anytime soon. This is just an insurance policy against future shortages and will ensure that I would be self-sufficient if the worst happens.

I am sure that more in-depth testings could be done (shooting from a bench, shooting with Pal rated rifles, etc.) but it is enough for me and this is the end of the road.

R-Gun Pete

Part 7: Test with a PAL rated break barrel rifle

It seems that I am not done yet.

After talking to Dukemeister who agreed to set up a Crosman Phantom for testing my projectiles at longer distances, I started resizing all the castings I had to .177”.

The goal was to get them as uniform as possible. Instead of just passing the pellets through the resizer, to ensure that both ends were flat and perpendicular to the axis, they were compacted in the tube against a hard surface before being pushed out of the hole.

At the start I had castings of different shapes but I didn’t realize that the extra compaction would really make all of them looking similar. I ended up with cylinders with a groove as it could be seen in the picture below.



Based on what I learned after all that resizing work, if I had to redo another mold I would simply drill the size below .177” into both halves clamped together and cast pointy cylinders (this is “if” the samples I prepared give good results in the test with Duke).

Duke assembled a Crosman Phantom shooting 8 grains pellets at 850 fps and several distances would be available for the tests.

When I arrived at his place he suggested that we should start by shooting at a distance of 15 yards to see how it would go.

I had assumed, because the Phantom and the Quest are basically the same rifle, that .177” would be the perfect size.

We quickly discovered that a .177” slug that was a perfect match for the Quest barrel was a very very tight fit in the Phantom barrel. After a few shots Duke suggested to chrony it. The projectiles we were shooting came from mold cavity 2-4 and had a weight of 15.9 grains which is about twice the weight (8 grains) of the pellet used to set the velocity baseline of 850 fps.

I should have taken notes but I am not very good at that. Needless to say that the reading on the chrony was a surprise, the shot clocked in the 300 fps (I think it was actually around 350 but as I mentioned I should have written it down).

Luckily I had brought my resizing dies with me and I promptly corrected the situation. The .176” slug was a lot easier to push into the barrel and this time the reading at 530 fps made more sense. What was strange is the fact that these slower and heavier projectiles were consistently impacting higher on the target than the lighter pellets used for the initial setup.

The next projectiles we tried were from cavity 1-2 weighing 20.8 grains. They were also resized to .176” and reached a speed of 495 fps.

With the same rifle, the same scope, the same rest when we were alternately shooting, Duke and I, we were getting different points of impact.

I think the last series we shot before calling it a day was with the castings from cavity 1-1, the lightest at 13.6 grains. After a few shots on paper, it seems we were getting nowhere accuracy wise, so my dream of shooting at longer distances would not become a reality. 15 yards was already more than enough.

To, at least, end the day on a good note, we switched to plinking mode and destroyed a couple of thick metal cans that Duke had in his garage. That was fun.

When I left, Duke let me borrow the Phantom to continue the tests at my place. At home, in my garage, I tried to shoot the other samples (from the leftover cavities not tested yet) without resizing them, to see if I would have some luck. It was quickly confirmed that none of them worked well and were moving too slow.

I bit the bullet (pun intended) and resized a couple of each to run more tests. I had to stop after only a few shots because now the projectiles were moving too fast and were going through 3/4” of putty and the 1/2” wood board backing. Luckily the other layers in my trap contained them.

I decided to go back to my Crosman Quest 500 to shoot the balance of the slugs I had put aside for testing. It took me a few shots to realize that this batch was shooting lower than what I remembered from my previous sessions.

After making some corrections I was able to hit the same reactive target I was using before. This is when I noticed that the flattened projectiles were not deformed as much as they were in my previous tests. This meant that they were all moving slower than I expected.

A bit of thinking made me realize that initially I resized the projectiles but essentially they kept most of their diabolo shapes but with the latest batch, to ensure uniformity, I went overboard and being more compacted their shapes were severely altered to the point of becoming mostly cylindrical.

Having the same diameter of .177”, both the first version and this one fit the same way in my Quest barrel but where the first version has only two rings of contact, the latest is in contact with the barrel on most of its surface (excepted for the groove) which results in a loss of velocity due to the friction. This seems to match my observations.



This a bit disappointing because now I have 8 bags of 50 slugs each that were uniformly compacted but are not performing in my Quest as well as the first versions I initially made.

It is also disappointing that the slugs, as they are, didn’t perform better in the higher velocity Phantom.

As mentioned earlier in the post, it might be possible to make a simpler mold by drilling only. A plain cylinder is not the best solution, as demonstrated by the slugs I tested, but if a slightly larger thin ring is added to the base of an undersized cylinder it could improve the fit in the barrel and reduce the friction (maybe?).

A number 17 drill (.173) would shape the main body and a number 16 drill (.177) would add the thin ring as shown in the picture below.



For the time being I have enough of that project and I will take a break. The journey has been interesting and I have learned a lot so I might decide to revisit this project sometime in the future.

Conclusion: It seems that in the previous post I was satisfied with the results I got. Maybe I should have stopped there because the latest version is not performing as well. It is also way too much work with this approach and I wouldn’t repeat it.

On the other hand, if the simpler drilled out mold can cast an acceptable plinking projectile without any resizing, it could become an attractive solution.

R-Gun Pete