Pressure Works.............

I managed to get another couple of quick tests in yesterday with the 225 Lehigh Extreme Penetrator. This bullet should and will enhance the capabilities of 45/70 in the extreme. And, it will seat in the case deep enough so that the cartridge works through the Marlin. Looking at these yesterday, I have some doubts about the nose projection of the 250 Lehighs being short enough. Will investigate that today I hope.

Now, since this is exploratory and these bullets are not growing on trees, I am only testing 2 rounds. In addition to that, I am testing from a 1 lb container of non blended or tested RL 7. Today, before I proceed, I have to mix up this batch, I think its close to 12 lbs, mix it, blend it, and then go to work with it. Because the next 1 lb container may be totally different, and it may be totally different than the 2015 blend I have been working out of. So I have to blend this damn batch of RL 7 before doing anything else with it.

The first test yesterday with the 225 Lehigh I started with 59/RL 7 and Winchester Large Rifle Primer. 2355 fps at 28800 PSI. Very low pressure, and expected in part because Weight Equal Pressure, and 225 is light........

Next I jumped to 62/RL 7, and the first shot gave a serious 2512 fps at 41500 PSI... Damn near Perfect. But the second shot was flawed and gave 2465 fps at 33000 PSI. This is WAY out of Spec in both ES of velocity and serious stupid ES in pressure. Not acceptable at all. ????? I think, not 100% sure, but I think maybe one of the Lehighs, the second shot, might have been undersized?? Something went wrong, and that comes to mind at first. Could be something else as well. Once I get the powder blended, I intend to retest this, and also measure the bullet diameters.....

If we can get this to run at 2500 fps this would be a serious load in 45/70..... the bullet has extreme terminal performance, and will enhance greatly what one can do with 45/70s..........

DSCN1806-X3.jpg
 
@Michael458
Can you explain your method of blending powders?
I understand why, but not sure on the how to do it.
Big bucket (made out of?), wooden spoon (I assume), etc.
Also could I blend 6 lbs of IMR 4064 I got 25 years ago with 6 lbs I just picked up?
Thanks,
Ron

And thanks for these write ups on loading, sure is an education for me.
 
ronn47 said:
Can you explain your method of blending powders?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. No rocket science on this. Of course this is what we would call a single powder blend. The reason for this, all powders are not created equal not only from Lot# to Lot#, but even from 1 lb to the next, even within the same Lot#. I forgot about trying to play Lot#s a long time ago. The Alliant powders are notorious for inconsistency from 1 lb to the next. Wonderful powders, but todays powder ain't yesterdays powder, and my powder ain't your powder. I use a lot of Alliant because in some particular instances it is the best and gives me the best results. But you gotta keep an close eye on it, or it will turn around and eat your ass off.......... The most notorious powders for being inconsistent are RL 7, RL 10X and RL 15. I normally try and purchase larger amounts of this if I can, blend all of it together, repackage it in larger containers, and label it as a separate blend.

It has to be tested against Prior Blends and Prior works. In most cases, a simple velocity MATCH will do fine. If you test your NEW BLEND against the OLD, and you are getting 100 fps MORE velocity, then you need to adjust down your new blend load, to match your OLD blend load. Same with Velocity and or Pressures.............

I use RL 7 in many different cartridges for many different applications. Today, I will be using this NEW blend of RL 7 in 45/70, as discussed above. One of my primary loads for RL 7 is with 308 Winchester and the 100 FB Raptor. Pressures MUST be kept to 52000 PSI or so with this load. I will test the new blend today and check this out, and make any adjustments required to equal the Older Blend. This will be my Third Generation Blend for the 308 Load. In the First Blend it used 42/RL 7 to accomplish my goals. In the second blend 42/RL 7 was over Pressure and even caused some issues. The Second Blend had to be dropped to 40.5 to equal the First Gen Blend. Now, today, we test the Third Gen to see where it comes in. It would be wonderful if it comes in close to Blend Gen 2. WE HOPE.

The method is easy, 5 gallon bucket, of course, CLEAN and DRY and powder of choice to blend.....

DSCN1810-X3.jpg



Pour it all in the bucket and mix it up, stir and shake............ Then back into larger containers and label.............

DSCN1815-X3.jpg


DSCN1818-X3.jpg
 
Last edited:
ronn47 said:
Also could I blend 6 lbs of IMR 4064 I got 25 years ago with 6 lbs I just picked up?
Click to expand...
Absolutely yes, and you are probably better off to do so. But, you will have to test that blend against other loads and adjust if required..........Like I am doing today with the new 14 lb Blend of RL 7 2172021 Blend.....Against a known Blend 652015..........

DSCN1819-X3.jpg
 
What are your thoughts about the effect of the "extreme penetrator" style bullet vs. classic wide meplat? What are there situations where you would choose one over the other?
Thanks
 
Graycard said:

Michael, just a short comment. If you like the 7.62x40, you will love the 300 HAM'R.​

Click to expand...

HEH HEH......... I see you got suckered into Wilson BS. And regardless of whatever else Wilson does or builds, they know F"All about these rifles and cartridges. Zero, Nothing, Zilch and Full OF Crap from top to bottom...........

Yes, I am indeed a 7.62X40 fan, and yes, I got the first one from Wilson, and it was a POS from the word go......... POS (Piece of Sh#t)...........

First, I begged for a faster twist rate barrel, 1:8 and or at least 1:10, they refused, and it came standard with 1:12 and they would not budge on it. They don't have a clue when it comes to doing load data either, or pressures and or terminal ballistics/performance and know crap about bullet tech. What do they know? I can't answer that, far as I can tell F'All.......

When I received my upper, first thing off, it would not function with WW 296 and or LilGun. Sent it to SSK to have the gas ports fixed, or whatever you do...... Sent it back, now it worked anyway. Started shooting and the damn thing would not do any better than 3-4 inches at 50 yards, even the CNC machined Raptors would not get under 3 inches. Not acceptable. Sent the damn thing to SSK and had a new 1:8 twist rate barrel put on it, and now its a ONE HOLE deal at 50 yards. What did I get from Wilson??? Not much after that. I did not get my money's worth I can promise you that.

These cartridges are better suited for slightly faster powders such as WW 296 and in particular the 7.62X40 shines with LilGun. Wilson is still using AA 1680, CFE BLK and Shooters World, and if you look they are all together on the burn chart and there is no difference in those three powders, except AA1680 has one hell of a fire ball. I use all three of these powders, but they are too slow for 7.62X40 to be optimum. And since the Egotistical Wilson 300 Mighty Hammer is only .03 inches longer than a 7.62X40 and only has an increased case capacity of ONE GRAIN Of Powder, then I suspect the mighty 300 Hammer would also run a bit better on LilGun perhaps..........

Here's the deal......... I have the load data for 300 Ham in front of me now. Some examples straight from the data, and of course they have no Pressure Data to go with it.......

16.25 Inch Barrel
Various Shooters World, AA1680 and CFE BLK.
95 Lehigh 2775 fps
110 2650 fps is the fastest I see
125 2500 fps is the fastest I see

OK, now here is some of my data for 7.62X40

First data is with 18 inch barrel Winchester M70
We consider 55000 PSI Max Working Pressure

100 FB Raptor 25.5/LilGun 2857 fps at 52400 PSI
110 Barnes TTSX 24/LilGun 2655 fps at 50700 PSI
125 Hornady 26/CFE BLK 2425 fps at 48800 PSI
125 Hornady 22/Lilgun 2453 fps at 55500 PSI

In 16 inch guns the 100 FB Raptor Load is running 2741 fps and the 110 Barnes Load is running 2557 fps,

So maybe the mighty Ham has 50 fps or so in the 7.62X40........ I will give it that. Maybe it does..... As you can see, I have not hit 55000 PSI with many of those loads!

If the folks at Wilson were just a bit smarter, they might look more towards enhancing the Ham cartridge with proper Load Data, and above all Bullet Tech. That 100 FB Raptor will out perform in both Trauma inflicted, and depth of penetration than anything the Hammer is being loaded with, and in fact it takes a 200 gr Swift A Frame fired from a 300 Winchester to equal the depth of penetration of the 100 Raptor, but the 200 Swift does not inflict as much trauma as the
100 Raptor.

The Hammer is longer by .03 inches. This is troublesome in and of itself, with some bullets it is all you can do with the 7.62X40 to get them deep enough to work through the magazine... If you had a Hammer, you would have to shorten the damn case to seat the 100 Raptor properly to fit the magazine......??????

No, the Mighty 300 Hammer is nothing but Wilson Propaganda and Sells Hype......I also see they use a 1:15 twist barrel, something from the late 1800s I suppose........

Now in all fairness as well, do keep in mind I have 2 semi 7.62X40s, and two bolt guns. I recently had a Winchester M70 converted for my Daughter to deer hunt with, and its just about as perfect as you can ask for in that role, with 100 Raptors......... I also have a good bit of Ammo on hand in 7.62X40. For me, to even think about a 300 Hammer and maybe 50-100 fps difference and have to do new load data to get that, no thanks... I don't see that.......

Not to long ago my buddy Sam got all hot on 358 MGP. Its the 6.8 SPC or whatever that is necked up to 358. And its pretty spiffy, I like it and have a good working .358 caliber gun. He got hot to squeeze it back down to .308 caliber, now it has a lot more case capacity than the 7.62X40 and the 300 Hammer. It lives in CFE BLK and Shooters World, and the case is perfect for those powders, as is the 358 version. We were able to run the 100 Raptor in this case, 16 inch gun too, at 3075 fps pushing the upper limits a bit I admit at 56000 PSI, and 110s at 2850 fps at 55000 PSI. That is equal to what I am pushing the 100 Raptor in 308 Winchester in 16 inch guns, so it is pretty serious and a hell of a lot more than the mighty Hammer. But I did not buy into that one either, just too much invested in 7.62X40.............

NO, I am not much of a Wilson fan (except for 45 ACP magazines) and not much respect for their rifle savvy at all. BS...........

No Offense of course.........but as I see it there is really no difference in the two, not enough to perk up even a little excitement.

Next...............
 
Fess said:
What are your thoughts about the effect of the "extreme penetrator" style bullet vs. classic wide meplat? What are there situations where you would choose one over the other?
Thanks
Click to expand...

These are two completely different bullets with different mission objectives and method of operations.................

The Lehigh Penetrator is a limited penetration solid, that is more focused on inflicting TRAUMA and still giving deeper penetration than conventional expanding bullets, but cannot compete with the depth of penetration of a Flat Nose Solid that is properly designed. It causes MORE TRAUMA than the FN Solid, but cannot penetrate as deep as the FN Solid. It is an excellent choice for cartridges of limited capacity. You can shoot a much lighter bullet, at higher velocity in any given caliber, and still not sacrifice penetration. This is why its excellent in certain handgun cartridges such as 45 ACP and 9mm. I see it giving the old 45/70 new life as well. Just yesterday I hit 2500 fps with a 225 Lehigh, and a 225 Lehigh would be excellent at even the heaviest and toughest of animals, buffalo. I wish we would have had these back in the early 2000s when I was playing with 45/70 and buffalo................

The Lehighs should be followed by the FN Solids. Those second shots, you need PENETRATION. And you need a lot of penetration and it needs to be dead straight. Only the Flat Nose Solids can give you that. They can go where NO OTHER BULLET CAN. Including the Lehigh Extremes.

So you see, they complement each other, and have two distinctly different roles. Lets say we were hunting buffalo. I would use the Lehigh up front as first shot, to produce as much trauma as possible, then everything there after would be the FN Solids............. If you were in heavy thick brush, then I would choose the FN Solids.......... and so forth............ Depends on the scenario presented........... Open ground and deer, the Lehigh.........

DSCN1828-X3.jpg
 
Yep, no doubt about it, you don't like Wilson. You'll probably hate me! I was involved with the HAM'R from day one. In fact, the first rifle ever to be labeled 300 HAM'R is sitting by my desk.
I was the first writer to ever review the 7.62X40, and the first to review the 300 HAM'R. I had over 5,000 rounds downrange before the cartridge was even announced. I could relate all of the testing since I have it all documented in about two reams of paper (Including pressure testing by an independent lab belonging to a major powder company.) but I doubt I could change your mind.
So, to be civil, I won't make the effort. We will just have to respect each other opinion and co-exist.
 
Graycard said:
Yep, no doubt about it, you don't like Wilson. You'll probably hate me! I was involved with the HAM'R from day one. In fact, the first rifle ever to be labeled 300 HAM'R is sitting by my desk.
I was the first writer to ever review the 7.62X40, and the first to review the 300 HAM'R. I had over 5,000 rounds downrange before the cartridge was even announced. I could relate all of the testing since I have it all documented in about two reams of paper (Including pressure testing by an independent lab belonging to a major powder company.) but I doubt I could change your mind.
So, to be civil, I won't make the effort. We will just have to respect each other opinion and co-exist.
Click to expand...
It appears you asked a question/made a statement and did not get the answer you were looking for??


Why not compare testing methods/protocols? It is in the best interest of the forum to share data/knowledge and let the readership decide.
 
Last edited:
Graycard said:
Yep, no doubt about it, you don't like Wilson. You'll probably hate me! I was involved with the HAM'R from day one. In fact, the first rifle ever to be labeled 300 HAM'R is sitting by my desk.
I was the first writer to ever review the 7.62X40, and the first to review the 300 HAM'R. I had over 5,000 rounds downrange before the cartridge was even announced. I could relate all of the testing since I have it all documented in about two reams of paper (Including pressure testing by an independent lab belonging to a major powder company.) but I doubt I could change your mind.
So, to be civil, I won't make the effort. We will just have to respect each other opinion and co-exist.
Click to expand...

I see that you are new to CFF. We enjoy being a very diverse community of enthusiast. I am sure that there are plenty on here that would like to hear your perspective and experience of helping to develop the 300 HAM'R. Why dont you start a thread of your own regarding that.
 
No, I wasn't looking for any answer. I just made a statement since I had not seen any reference to the HAM'R on the forums. It was meant as a friendly jester to introduce myself to the reloading forum.
I did not expect to have one of my personal friends (Bill Wilson) and his company attacked in such a manner. So, I will not hijack this thread and have it spiral off into a "hate-fest." Michael was talking about his efforts with the 45-70 and it should continue.
 
The shape of the Lehigh Penetrators remind me of some of the bullets that were tested for reduced-range military ammo. Some had flutes on the nose, some on the tail, but they were designed to slow the bullet's rotation and cause it to go unstable after a few hundred yards. The idea was that the bullets be accurate enough for practice on a range (something like 400 meters, but I can't remember exactly). But past that distance, they would yaw in the air, slow down and drop more quickly than a normal bullet. Are the LeHighs Penetrator style bullets expected to be used at relatively short distances so the reduction of spin is not an issue, or am I missing something here (a strong possibility)?
Thanks
 
Graycard said:
You'll probably hate me! I was involved with the HAM'R from day one.
Click to expand...

Nonsense........ I don't know you, much less hate you........I think being involved in the cartridge will give me some insight that I did not have before and very worthy of discussion, I would like to know more.

Graycard said:
Yep, no doubt about it, you don't like Wilson.
Click to expand...

What I don't like is getting a product that was crap. First, had to send it to SSK to open up the gas so it would work with other powders. The rifle set up to work with ONLY what was tested, which was AA 1680 and that burn rate powder. This delayed my getting started. Then of all things, once it started working, the barrel really was a crap barrel and had to be replaced. Now I already had a bone in my A$$ with the SLOW 1:12 twist, and refusal to even go 1:10. Now I had a barrel that would not shoot ANY BULLET inside 3 inches at 50 yards???? Believe me if a rifle won't shoot CNC machined bullets in a hole at 50 yards, there is something wrong. Inspection of the barrel sent from Wilson confirmed it was a crap barrel rough as a cob according to Brian at SSK. Now, what did I get for all the effort? A receiver? Yes, I do indeed have a bone stuck in my A$$ about that. And, I am sure it has an effect on what I think about the 300 Hamr as well and most anything else that comes out of Wilson (except the 45 ACP magazines, best in the world and used them damn near all my adult life)...... LOL............

I like the 7.62X40, its a great little cartridge and can easily stand on its own. I had Brian get a reamer for it, of course had to put new barrel on the wilson crap, later run the reamer straight into a 300 BLK CMMG gun and it really is premium, and even better than the new barrel on the wilson crap. In addition I had Brian convert a Winchester M70 223 for me, and it is a shooter for sure. My Daughter started hunting with her brother, and I had another 7.62X40 Winchester put together for her.

With this investment in 7.62X40, lots of ammo on hand as well, the very very poor experience with wilson, all causes me to condemn the 300 Hamr, deserving of it or not............. These are things you could not know, and I am sorry you felt like it was an attack on you, and I can see where you would think such, but it was not really directed to you personally, I don't know you, it is a PET PEEVE of mine, because of the various things stated.

Graycard said:
I could relate all of the testing since I have it all documented
Click to expand...
I would like for us to dive into some of this, in particular I would like to hear about the choices of bullets and powders, and if you investigated different ideas concerning both......Who knows, we might both learn something....I am game, lets learn. Just don't come to me stating how wonderful wilson is and crap..... this is you and me in a proper discussion.

I often wondered why in the world, even with 7.62X40 that wilson did not investigate Bullet Tech a little further. I often thought I would call them up and tell them about the 100 Raptor, if they ran that 100 Raptor in either the 7.62X40 or 300 Hamr, it would enhance the cartridge to the point that they would own that market. Of course, with the 100 Raptor, the 300 Hamr would have never been needed, or so called needed. Leads me to wonder about that decision period.

But no man, lets by all means discuss, we can either start a new thread 7.62X40 300Hamr thread, or here is fine too..... does not matter..........
Graycard said:
It was meant as a friendly jester to introduce myself to the reloading forum.
Click to expand...
HEH........ Well, you got introduced I suppose........ Just not the way you had envisioned I guess...........Introduced by Fire And BrimStone will make you stronger.......LOL............

Welcome @Graycard I am glad to have you and I bet we can come up with some very good ideas together

Graycard said:
So, to be civil, I won't make the effort. We will just have to respect each other opinion and co-exist.
Click to expand...
Graycard said:
So, I will not hijack this thread and have it spiral off into a "hate-fest."
Click to expand...

Well done, I appreciate that, now as Doc Holliday once said "There now, We can Be Friends Again"............................
 
OK, well back to Pressure Works I assume............

We were testing the New RL 7 Blend 2172021 against the older 652015 blend, and in some cases even older data before that.

One thing tends to lead to another when you play this game. In 308 Winchester tests and MilSpec Brass, the 2172021 Blend is very close to the 652015 Blend. With the 100 Raptor and 40.5/RL 7 652015 Blend we averaged out at 50600 to 52100 PSI and a tad over 3300 fps on several different tests at different times. The Same load, MilSpec Brass 2172021 Blend came in at 52600 PSI and 3304 fps...... For MilSpec brass we will stay at 40.5/RL 7, both Blends......

Now, I have all the brand new 308 Peterson Commercial brass on hand........It has not really been put to the test until the other day....... Knowing it would have some more case capacity than the MilSpec, I loaded 41/RL 7 2172021 Blend for a very low 3169 fps and 43600 PSI........ I went up to 42/RL 7 20172021 Blend and moved closer to spec at 3295 fps and 48200 PSI.

Now this leads to a little more in depth study of the Peterson Brass. Again, to validate another 42/RL 7 20172021 Blend with NEW BRASS. Another Test, Same Load but with FIRED BRASS. Then duplicate both New and Fired with 42/RL 7 652015 Blend. And then again, I had some Winchester New Brass, with Winchester Primers and will test the same 42/RL 7 2172021 Blend....... This should bring to light what will need to be done with the Peterson Brass.

We did not discover any real differences in the two RL 7 blends, we suspected we probably would, but very pleasantly surprised that we did not. I had not used anything but MilSpec brass in a long time in 308, so now we have the brass to sort out and get up to spec, not the damn powder.......... Its always something, and one thing leads to something else...........

On 2/17 we also continued our work in 45/70. I do not have as much recent data on 45/70 with RL 7 as I did the 308 loads which get tested frequently. The last data I had with 45/70 dates to 2014. On 2/17 which is only the second day shooting with the NEW STRAIN GAGE, my pressure data just was not coming out as expected. By the end I determined the data was flawed, and possibly something was not right with the gage or connection. I changed some wiring around, but in the end I decided to remove the new gage and replace it as well. In between I tested for nothing but velocity comparison between 2014 and current 2172021 Blends..... Using a 295 CEB LG Raptor with 52/RL 7 in 2014 it hit 2043 fps and 39100 PSI. The Same load with 2172021 Blend hit 2041 fps. I would say that was a dead on match, and the 2172021 Blend of RL 7 is good to go in 45/70.

I may be able to get out this morning and check the New Strain Gage on the 45/70, and in addition test the 308 Peterson brass........ If not, it will be next week before getting back on the project..............

We keep a lot of information here, and a lot of data. Not only is every test kept and recorded for over 20 years, but a file is also kept on every rifle being fired, including test targets and other important specific information on that particular firearm.

DSC03974-L.jpg


DSC03975-L.jpg


DSC03977-L.jpg


There is load data, pressure data, Terminal Ballistic data, and much more kept in detail. Every bullet that is tested for Terminal Ballistics is also bagged, tagged, recorded and kept ...............

DSC03973-L.jpg
DSC03994-L.jpg


Very few things slip by unrecorded or undocumented around here....................... The File folder for all this is nearly 2 GB...... thats a lot of data on spreadsheets..............LOL....................
 
It sounds as if you are as bad as I am. I guess there is a reason why the root of "analysis" is "anal". 🙂 With a engineering background I always thought ballistics would bee an exact science, but every now and then a little voodoo creeps in. I'll have to track down a few old threads that shows and explains your pressure testing set-up.

​

 
Graycard said:
I always thought ballistics would bee an exact science, but every now and then a little voodoo creeps in
Click to expand...

With a LOT of emphasis put on the "VooDoo".............

Ken Oehler says this at the very beginning of the System 83 Manual.

Chamber pressure measurement is a blend of science, black art, and common sense. There are few absolutes; the best we can expect is to reliably distinguish between the safe and the unsafe. Pressure measurements are tedious, but they must be made. Pressures will literally rise up to smite the unwary.

You Must Understand This………. And take it to heart, when considering Pressures…. All Pressures, From ANY SOURCE………

You may read that the pressure of a certain load is 56,000 psi. You must not assume that the 56,000 psi is an absolute number. The 56,000 psi number by itself does not tell you the pressure that will be generated when you fire the ammo in any specific test barrel or gun. The pressure generated by the round depends greatly on the gun in which it is fired and the test conditions. Individual chamber and barrel tolerances are critical. The pressure numbers so casually mentioned with great authority are not absolute; they are approximate and they are only relative!

The pressures measured in any specific gun with the either piezo transducer or strain gage apply only to that gun. You can use the pressure numbers to compare different ammo fired in the same gun with the same instrumentation. Strain gage readings from the M83 correspond closely to pressures in hundreds of pounds per square inch. Pressures in sporting gun will typically be lower than pressures of the same ammo fired in a standard test barrel because the test barrel is intentionally made tighter than typical sporting barrels. Just as some barrels shoot accurately and some won’t, the same ammo builds different pressures in different barrels.


Graycard said:
I'll have to track down a few old threads that shows and explains your pressure testing set-up.
Click to expand...

You can start with this one I did here a few months ago..............

The Mystery Of PRESSURE

I very much enjoy real HandLoading. In many ways I look at it as a Science. Now I am not talking about sitting down and loading 500-1000 45 ACP or other bulk loading….. that is Reloading, not HandLoading……… And yes, I do that too, and a Lot of it…. Sometimes after doing the Science it turns into...
carolinafirearmsforum.com carolinafirearmsforum.com
 
In an earlier thread, you said that usually higher velocity means higher pressure, especially when going from one lot to another of a particular powder. Some powders now claim to get higher velocities because they flatten and extend the pressure peak. I am thinking of Superformance and Leverevolution, but there are probably others. Does your testing seem to validate those claims, or is there something else going on?
Thanks
 
Fess said:
In an earlier thread, you said that usually higher velocity means higher pressure, especially when going from one lot to another of a particular powder. Some powders now claim to get higher velocities because they flatten and extend the pressure peak. I am thinking of Superformance and Leverevolution, but there are probably others. Does your testing seem to validate those claims, or is there something else going on?
Thanks
Click to expand...

That is a good question, but I honestly do not have an answer for that. First, I have not worked with Superformance or Leverevolution enough to know. I am sure I have anomalies in various tests we could look at, but most can be attributed to other factors. Goes back to the question of "Magic Powders", which I firmly believe can exist through various blends. I am still looking for that magic powder........
 
All Brass is NOT Created Equal


Most of us realize that and that is not some sort of new or great revelation. The brass or cartridge case can be perhaps the most important component and the most determining factor of the entire equation. This component can make or break your success in obtaining a good load, consistent load, and the desired properties of that load.

Most of us load various cartridges, common brass and rarely experience or even investigate these differences unless we have an issue, or a severe case of OCD....... I remember many many years ago, playing with 458 Lott. I had been making my own cases from 375 H&H blowing out to .458 caliber. Excellent brass, worked great, and at that time there was no such thing as head stamped 458 Lott brass. Along came A-Square with some head stamped brass, which I scooped up soon as I could get some. Went out to shoot some standard loads I had developed with 375HH Brass, not high pressure loads, and this brass locked the gun up tight??????? Later I found this A-Square brass just would not hold the pressures that the 375HH brass and other brass would hold. And that began a long journey in every other cartridge I have dealt with since. I could relate story after story about how brass makes such a big difference, I have plenty of them and I continue to learn myself. I pay very close attention to making brass changes with rifle cartridges. In the last several years Remington and Winchester have all but ceased production of RUM and WSM brass. Well, this is kind of a big damn deal to me, since the B&M cartridges are all based on those parent cartridges.... OH CRAP. Fortunately Norma, Nosler and Hornady have taken up the RUM and WSM mantle since. But, are they equal to the Remington and Winchester brass that I based the B&Ms on? It had to be tested, and tested throughly, because my guys in the field were depending on it. No way I could have my guys hunting in Africa and have a problem because the damn brass was not worth a damn. Fortunately in this case, the Norma and Nosler proved to be even better brass than the Remington and Winchester. Hornady was useable and would hold the pressures, but it was also thinner and causes some issues with neck tightness. It also has less capacity of course, and has to be loaded with another grain or so of powder to equal the Norma and Nosler. Norma in particular will actually hold a bit more pressure than the other brass, and gives a little more velocity, with less pressures. And the story can go on and on............... But you get the jest of the matter I suppose.

I load 223 and 308, like many of you, and you know, or can imagine all the different variants of brass that can be had in those two common cartridges. Probably the big differences that come to mind for most of us is the difference between MilSpec brass and commercial brass........ We all know this. MilSpec is normally heavier, has some less capacity and therefore produces more pressures. It is common that we drop a grain or so of powder to accommodate these differences in brass thickness and capacity.

Recently I was able to get my hands on a nice batch of 223 Norma brass. Being things are very hard to come by these days, I put in 3000 new pieces of this Norma brass. Oh my, is it nice stuff.... WOW............. But for many years now I have mostly used MilSpec brass, which is also excellent, and have not used or tested any substantial amount of commercial brass..... To me, 3000 Pieces of New Norma was substantial enough to at least do a velocity test with the standard load I had been using. I did not pressure test, but velocity is very close to equal, so I have left it at that for the time being.......MilSpec tests velocity from 3300 to 3318 over a large series of tests, and the Norma tested at 3302 to 3314... close enough for now. Which this is one way that one can keep a check on matters going from one component to another without having Pressure Equipment to test with.

Above I was concerned with the New Blend of RL 7 as opposed to the Blend I had been using. Mentioned also, the variance in Alliant Powders. I had RL 7 and other RL's bite me in the A$$ a couple of times, so I try to be diligent in making these powder changes.......As it turned out, to my pleasant surprise, for the most part the new RL 7 Blend is basically equal to the older blend I had been using.........But it did lead to needing to test some NEW Peterson 308 brass I had come across and laid in.

Like 223, I had been using mostly MilSpec brass the last several years, and not much if any commercial 308. My basic loads with the 100 Raptors have been 40.5/RL 7 using MilSpec. I have all the New Peterson Brass prepped and ready to load, but had not given it a serious check test yet. MilSpec can vary so much, normally you need to work a couple of tests in to get some average results..... I did, and the new blend of RL 7 tested equal to the old blend in basic pressures and velocities within reason........

But when I tested the New Peterson brass, pressures and velocity dropped substantially less and way too far out of spec for my tastes........The MilSpec Load Benchmark is 52000 PSI or so and 3300 fps or so, in the test rifle, which is a 26 inch Remington 308 bolt gun. Expecting some change, I bumped the load for the New Peterson to 41/RL 7, which run to my surprise very low at 3189 fps and 43600 PSI. This is somewhat a cause for concern, as this particular load had to work in various different types of rifles, and the fact that every 308 Rifle I own is sighted in with the standard load of 3300 fps....... Dropping this much could cause issues with the different rifles............I needed to up the charge and the velocity to match or come close to the MilSpec standard......

The first preliminary test was;

100 Raptor 42/RL 7 Fed 210 3295 fps at 48200 PSI. This I believe I could accept and not get any real changes in various rifles........ Which will be the next part of this test this week.........

I was not satisfied with just one test of 3. I Loaded up again, to validate this test and once again New Peterson Brass....

100 Raptor 42/RL 7 Fed 210 3292 fps at 46700 PSI.

Well how about FIRED Peterson brass????? What is that number................

100 Raptor 42/RL 7 Fed 210 3316 fps at 49500 PSI. with Fired Brass.

Now the only thing left to do is to check this in a couple of different rifles to make sure everything holds, and everything works, feeds functions with this New and fired Peterson brass......

Just so happened that I had some NEW Winchester brass on the bench, not many maybe 12 pieces. But I had loaded these to test Winchester Primers.

100 Raptor 42/RL 7 Winchester Primer 3303 fps at 52000 PSI. NEW Winchester Brass, basically the same as MilSpec specs............

The New Peterson averaged around 47500 PSI and the Winchester New at 52000 PSI with the same load, exception the Primer, so that throws a small kink in the analysis. The big difference was New Peterson and Milspec 43600 PSI and 52000 PSI even with the New Peterson with a 1/2 grain extra. Thats 8400 PSI and 111 fps difference, enough to cause some issues........

Also, keep in mind, this time it was Pressure DOWN. I have tested these things in the other direction, which is more troublesome, and giving PRESSURE UP.............I will very simply make take the charge up to 42/RL 7 for the Peterson brass and it should be close, if it tests out well in other rifles, we will find that out this week.

Remember this, ALL COMPONENTS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, including your brass.....................Check and test when making changes to components....... Without Pressure equipment, a simple velocity check will give you some ideas of where you stand now, as opposed to where you stood yesterday.............
 
As we know components are not so easy to come by these days, so I have been picking up a few things here and there and along the way as it become available. When .308 caliber 110 gr Barnes, 110 Hornady and even 110-115 Lehigh become available I put some on the shelf. All these do very well, and have close POI with the main load in 300 BLK and the 100 Raptors. Makes for cheaper shooting, especially the Hornady, with same or very close to the same POI.

But I had yet to get a close POI with various 308 Winchester rifles with other bullets, when sighted in with 100 Raptors. Until just recently.......

Not so long ago I ran across some very reasonable priced 125 Hornady with the red tip........... I bought 500 of these, and figured surely I could find something they would shoot in. In January I loaded up some in 300 BLK, 7.62X40, and 308 Winchester. I ran 3 loads in the 308, and one load really stood out, 46/IMR 8208. In the longer barrel test gun it gave 3082 fps at 48000 PSI. I put that aside, and decided I would later load some to check POI in various rifles I had here.

I loaded up 20 or so of these to check various POI in different rifles, along with some 100 Raptors and the Peterson brass tasted above, and why not, load some 110 Barnes with the same load as the 125 Hornady and check them out.

This week I really wanted to test my Christensen Semi 308 with the new Peterson load to make sure feed/function and all was good. I took it to the range, and this rifle is just stupid good, I had not had it out of the safe since 2016 where it was sighted in with 100 Raptor loads, topped with a 2.5X8 Nikon Monarch. Checked the Peterson brass and 100 Raptors, and the POI was dead spot on where it last shot in 2016. I was pleased with this. Feed/Function perfect. Then I shot the 125 Hornady load and the 110 Barnes load, both with 46/IMR 8208, and behold, both of these were nearly in the same hole as the 100 Raptors..... in this rifle, I could pick and choose......... This is a 16 inch gun, and the velocity for the 125 Hornady 46/IMR 8208 at 48000 PSI ran 2856 fps and the 110 Barnes with 46/IMR 8208 ran 2903 fps...... All in the same hole at 50, or extremely close enough. The 125s were about 1/4 inch right, same height. Close enough.........

Yesterday I took my Winchester M70 Maple FW to the range for the same exercise in POI checks. With the success of the 46/IMR 8208 loads matching 100 Raptor loads in the Christensen, I decided to add some 130 gr CEB Solids to this test, and with the same load 46/IMR 8208.

DSCN1831-X3.jpg


DSCN5999-X2.jpg



I tried some of the 130 Solids a couple of years ago, no success, so I just put them to the side and did not think of them again.................

I checked the 100 Raptor loads, this gun has a 18.5 inch barrel, and they ran 3197 fps with New Peterson brass and 3261 fps with Fired Peterson brass. Both dead center at 50. Checked the 110 Barnes at 2941 fps, 125 Hornady at 2928 fps and the 130 Solids at 2898 fps. The 110s, 125, and 130 were all 1 inch lower, still center than the 100 Raptor load. Being centered I decided POI would be fine with these. I raised the 100 Raptor load to 1 inch high at 50, and all the rest were dead on at 50. Call it a day..............I was extremely pleased with these results, and now I can load the other bullets in 308 and use them, at least in two rifles. I have a few more to check POI, but hoping this holds true or close to true with them as well............ Its nice to have some different bullets for either cheaper shooting, or other mission requirements, especially the Solids...............

Not enough time today to work with my Winchester Maple Sporter, but it is next on the POI Check list................................

Later I will get pressures on the 110 Barnes and the 130 CEB Solids....................I suspect both will be fine and well under max.................
 
Fess said:
In an earlier thread, you said that usually higher velocity means higher pressure, especially when going from one lot to another of a particular powder. Some powders now claim to get higher velocities because they flatten and extend the pressure peak. I am thinking of Superformance and Leverevolution, but there are probably others. Does your testing seem to validate those claims, or is there something else going on?
Thanks
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure what you suggest is the answer. I suspect that the higher the average pressure is during the time the bullet is in the barrel , the higher the velocity. Having a high peak pressure is one way, and sustaining a moderately high pressure the length of the barrel is another. Both could result in the same velocity.
 
JohnFreeman said:
I'm pretty sure what you suggest is the answer. I suspect that the higher the average pressure is during the time the bullet is in the barrel , the higher the velocity. Having a high peak pressure is one way, and sustaining a moderately high pressure the length of the barrel is another. Both could result in the same velocity.
Click to expand...
I am curious if the flatter, wider peak would be maintained in cartridges for which they were not designed. It is entirely possible that the properties change at higher pressures. For example, Hodgdon does not list leverevolution loads for the .308 Winchester, despite the fact that it lists the burn rate for leverevolution between other powders used with that cartridge.

edited to add: I find it curious that Hodgdon includes this in the leverevolution's description: "The list of cartridges and bullets is limited with this highly specialized powder, but where it works, it really works!"
 
Last edited:
Fess said:
I am curious if the flatter, wider peak would be maintained in cartridges for which they were not designed.
Click to expand...

In my experiences different cartridges behave entirely, different, even within the same caliber. For instance these behave differently in the way they may burn the same powders.... 30/30 and 308. Another comparison would be 300 WSM and 300 Winchester, one with a short fat powder column the other with longer narrow powder column. I would be entirely possible for a particular powder to burn and behave extremely well in one cartridge, and not so good in another.

There are so many variables involved it is just impossible to speculate either way without conclusive tests on a specific question. And again I have no experience with the powder you have questions about. It is interesting, and it is a good question. Possibly something we might be able to investigate in the future.
 
When I first played with 300MP in 357mag, I was somewhat disappointed. I did not get any increase in performance over H110 (not that I was disappointed with H110). That was from a 5” revolver, though. I started low and worked up, but loads from mid-range and up saw absolutely no increase in velocity.

Later, I decided to try 300MP again, but with a new rifle in 357mag. WOW. I saw a linear increase in velocity all the way up to published max charge. The most accurate was about 0.5gn below max, and was 200fps faster than a max charge of H110, and no signs of high pressure. This led me to believe that the powder burned from the base of the powder column to the top, and a 5” barrel wasn’t long enough for the powder burn the full column. Whether that is actually what was happening, I don’t know.

So, I guess barrel length is another variable to add to the list.
 
Toprudder said:
So, I guess barrel length is another variable to add to the list.
Click to expand...

Yes, barrel length equal more inside cubic area in which to burn, not just length, but caliber as well. The larger the caliber the more efficient the burn, more inside cubic inches in which to completely utilize the burn.
 
Toprudder said:
So, I guess barrel length is another variable to add to the list.
Click to expand...

Another thought on barrel length to consider as well. Barrel length was and is a major consideration and one of the reasons our B&M rifles and cartridges exist. I once had an altercation with a big bull hippo in Tanzania. At the time I was toting around a 24 inch Winchester M70 458 Lott. It came in LONG, or it felt like it at the time, and it was heavy at 10 lbs or so with scope. This altercation took place at rather close quarters, and was decided at 6 steps. Time slowed down, and it seemed I had time to think, Damn this rifle is heavy. Damn its long! Damn there has to be something better, shorter, faster, easier to handle................Bang, end of story. After this we came up with the B&M rifles and cartridges, quite by accident in a way.

Very long story, shortened to nothing, the end game we discovered one could cut and trim the longer RUM case down to fit in a WSM Control Feed Win M70. This case had the same case capacity as a 458 Winchester that is 2.5 inches long, and the B&M RUM case at 2.25 inches, 1/4 inch shorter, same capacity. Does not sound like much, but it made a huge difference. In the longer 458 Winchester you really needed 24 inches to reach potential, and depending on the caliber of the B&M RUM case, it could reach potential at 18-20 inches. 4-6 inches less barrel in the bush is rather significant. In this case, a 20 inch 458 B&M was dead equal to a 24 inch 458 Winchester. At 18 inches one was not far off the 458 Winchester ballistics, and using superior bullet tech, I ended up preferring the 18 inch version, which has proven itself many times over in the field for Dangerous game, and anything that walks the planet.

I am sure we all remember when the 300 WSM hit the market and all the hype about how much more efficient the shorter fatter case is than the longer .308 caliber cases, such as 300 Winchester. I never really bought into that, but probably the biggest reason was that I just did not care or pay much attention to those small calibers, not much use for them. Fact is, soon as the 300 WSM hit the market, I already had a 338 WSM built to play with, 22 inch barrel. And one of the reasons that the light bulb came on with the B&M cartridges..........

I learned a lot about efficiency of the shorter fatter powder column with the B&M cartridges. But, it takes caliber and inside cubic inches to realize it fully. Currently there are 6 B&M cartridges based on 2.240 to 2.250 inch RUM cases. From 9.3 (.366), .375, .416, .458, .474, and .500. Every step up, the efficiency shows and you can get by with less barrel length. At 9.3 and .375 those are standard at 20 inches, but you can gain at 22 or better, but you can still be sufficient at 19 inches by utilizing Bullet Tech. Almost the same at 416 and 458, these are optimum at 20, can get some better at longer, but can also utilize Bullet Tech to be more than sufficient at 18. The .474s and .500s opt out at 18 inches, you really gain zero at 20........ More cubic inches for inside burn........all with the same capacity, different calibers.........Efficiency starts to show as you increase caliber.

Now I am sure, or I believe that one could start to increase that barrel length, and use slower powders and gain even more perhaps....... but at that point I will have betrayed the purpose of the rifle, shorter, faster, and handier than common cartridges for those purposes. Not something I desire to explore, as there is no gain or purpose for it. In the end I chose the 18 inch versions over any longer in 416, 458 and 500. They are a dream compared to a 24 inch gun for the field.

By using that inherent efficiency in the shorter fatter case, and of even more importance using Bullet Tech, I was able to be very successful in the field in these endeavors.

But I was a bit lazy with good pressure data. It was 2008 before I started actually doing any. I had to be forced into it by some of the magazine writers doing articles. Until then I was very satisfied with what I had just from case study. Real Pressure data was really required to move forward and to be able to answer some of the questions being asked. In the end, I was very pleased with the case study as it matched up nearly perfect with actual max pressures......... and by actually doing pressures and watching actual curves, it was very revealing concerning efficiency and other factors that came into play.

Later, next story, will be about doing the pressure work on 50 B&M Alaskan and the lever guns...........
 
I've been nearly that close to a hippo in Tanzania too and thankfully for me they don't like to walk on sharp rocks. At least that what our guide told me. I was just a tourist, not a hunter.

I got to shoot one of your 50B&M rifles at Billy's range. The rifle was light and handy, the recoil was less punishing than a 30-cal mil-surp and the damage to the 2" thick steel target was unbelievable. A small part of me looks at what you're doing as re-inventing the wheel but I'll be damned if you didn't go and make a better wheel! If I ever had to stop a charging hippo that's what I'd wish for.
 
Catfish said:
A small part of me looks at what you're doing as re-inventing the wheel but I'll be damned if you didn't go and make a better wheel!
Click to expand...
HEH...... Well here is the test that says everything. Equal Ballistics and Calibers...... Equal bullets........... Handle a Winchester M70 24 Inch 458 Winchester then handle a Winchester M70 18 inch 458 B&M. I have NEVER had anyone elect to go with the 24 inch gun........... That is the "Wheel" you are talking about. When you jump to .500 caliber, you even far surpass the beloved 458 in Terminal Stopping Efficiency.......And now you add the Bullet Tech that was developed alongside the cartridges and the rifles............. A completely different world than anything available before............
 
Great work and a good choice in picking the Model 70 for your bolt rifles. How much do you modify the feed rails for reliable feeding?
 
OldNascar said:
How much do you modify the feed rails for reliable feeding
Click to expand...

MAGIC..........

Truth is, for the RUM based 2.25 inch cases I chose the Winchester M70 WSM actions. The magazine and action is already set up to handle the wider cartridge, so there really is not anything to do to facilitate feeding. Feeding is a snap on up to 70% meplat bullets. Beyond 70% even the Winchester does not feed. Now, other similar rifles will not feed as well as a Control feed M70.

When you get to .458 caliber + in this action you start to "possibly" have some issues with retaining cartridges in the magazine. You have taken a action designed to hold a cartridge that has 150-180 gr bullets in the nose to now a cartridge that has a 450-500 + gr bullet in the nose. When dragging the bolt over the cartridge, it wants to pull the nose out, and can spill the cartridges out. This can be fixed either by follower change, or a little more space in the magazine. I have fixed some by adding a washer, or spacer in the bottom screws and that relieves some tension on the spring, solving the issue. Many times on these guns we use Accurate Innovations stocks. The owner spent time here with me, and did some modifications to their stocks to facilitate this issue. If all else fails, you send the gun back to Brian at SSK, and in a Week he works the MAGIC, sends it back, and problem solved forever then.

But by using the WSM action that solves almost all issues up front anyway, it is rare that one has to be sent back for any adjustment.

OldNascar said:
Great work and a good choice in picking the Model 70 for your bolt rifles
Click to expand...
Thank you. I would have not even considered anything other than a Winchester M70. In fact, I have it so bad, I would not even go to the field unless it said Winchester on the side. Brian at SSK messes with me sometimes, he will send a gun back, with that blue masking tape, and write "Remington" on it. LOL.......... Naturally I have to call and have a few choice words with him, while he is laughing.............
 
Kinda like the Model 70’s myself. I had one of first WSM’s in the CRF version on this side of the mountain, a 7mm caliber. It took a lot of polishing/peeling/filing to get the thing to feed up a round properly especially the right side cartridge but once settled it ran the rounds nicely. I often wondered if the short fat round would have been better served with a single stack detachable magazine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom