Saeed,



Not to argue a practically pointless discussion, but what I said is technically true. When one is dealing with an improved case the improvement isn't enough to allow utilization of the next slower powder in an adequate volume to surpass the performance of the faster powder being used at the maximum pressure in the unimproved case.

Efficiency is also important as it determines the pressure curve for a given powder in a given case. If you change the throttle geometry, which ALL "improved" cases do, you effectively change the efficiency (making it more difficult for the gas to escape the gas) and pressures WILL RISE accordingly.



In other words, the "improved" case most definitely allows you to dump more powder in the case, but it doesn't enough slower powder to be dumped in and if the same powder is used you are simply increasing the chamber pressure. Barrel/chamber pressure = velocity for any given powder/cartridge combination, it really is that simple.



A 300 Weatherby magnum, as Canuck used as an expample of an "improved" case is grossly inaccurate. The 300 WM is not an improved 300 Winnie. Now a 416 WM is an improved 416 Rigby. I have data to states the 416 WM, being less efficient, actually produces a higher chamber pressure for a given powder/bullet weight/muzzle velocity combination than the 416 Rigby.



Canuck some actual examples.



30-30 has a case volume of ~ 47 grains

30-30 Ackley improved has a case volume of ~ 49 grains

Improved version benefit over the unimproved ~ 4%



30-06 has a case volume of ~ 68 grains

30-06 Ackley Improved has a case volume of ~ 69.4 grains

Improved version benefit over the unimproved ~ 2%



The two 300 magnum you referenced.



300 Winchester magnum has a case volume of ~ 90 grains

300 Weatherby magnum has a case volume of ~ 98.5 grains



The volumetric difference ~ 9.5%



The 300 Weatherby only beats out the 300 Win by about 50 to 60 fps when chamber pressures are held constant between the two. The Weatherby requires about 11% more of the next slower powder to beat the Winny.



I also realize your point, but in my opinion and experience Ray was right about the "improved" cartridges.



Enough of this techno crap!



ASS_CLOWN

AC, without getting into the nuances of "throttle geometry" due to removal of taper, sharpening of shoulders, etc, I do generally agree with your assessment.



The reason I purposely chose the 300 Mags as my example was to demonstrate that increased capacity does afford higher velocities with comparable pressure. I realize it was an exaggerated example, but I wanted one that was free of the possiblity for petty nitpicking about small 2 percent increases in capacity, slight changes in shoulder angle, etc. Just a direct comparison of case capacity to velocity.



You seem to have missed my point a couple of times now about why I brought up the improved cases in the first place. I never, ever said Ray was wrong about the "improved" cartridges. For the most part, the velocities their proponents claim are "over the top"...everyone knows that. BUT, Ray's 404 is about as much an "improvement" (strictly in terms of case capacity) over a 416 Rem Mag as my Gibbs' are over their standard counterpart. Most of the same reasons he presents against a 30 Gibbs (vs the standard '06) can be used against his favorite 404. Yet, he argues in favor of the 404 (vs the 416RM) and against the other (improved cartridges, generally). I just think its inconsistent. In particular, if its OK (or even desireable) to push a 404 to its limit and espouse virtues of same, why is the fact that improved cartridges are pushed to their limit a reason not to own one? That's all I was trying to say. And Ray took the time to reply to me...that's all I expected from him. He and I have always respected the fact that each of us are entitled to our own opinions when we have had disparate views.



Cheers,

Canuck

From a practical perspective when a big bull raccoon charged my little female Brittany last Saturday I knew I needed to act to avoid costly vet bills. The gun I had at the ready was a Model 70 converted to 404 Jeffery by McGowen. It sports a 1 in 10 twist 25 inch barrel. I was shooting 400 grain Woodleigh softs loaded by Superior Ammunition, not sure of the powder type or load. The dog was called to my side and I quickly fired a round at the raccoon, hitting him somewhere in the shoulder area. Unfortunatley the bullet was not recovered, So I cannot comment on its performance other than to say that the raccoon was dispatched in short order. When I presented the coon to my neighbor who shoots and skins these things for beer money he commented that "I guess you used enough gun".

BigB

Canuck,

My apologies for being SO dense. I now GET your point! I agree with you for the most part as well, by the way!!

ASS_CLOWN

.

"...I suppose that AssClown's statement is true within a narrow set of circumstances (ie. if you used the same powder and charge)..."

This true enough.

But, the point is if one is willing to go to an improved case, he is willing to add more powder to get the extra velocity.

Efficiency goes down as the case capacity goes up. There is no escaping this fact.

I am buying either a SAAMI approved strain gauge system or a universal receiver and pressure barrels this winter for a ballistics consulting contract that I picked up today.
I will be testing some 416 Rem Mag ammo as part of that. I have the 350 grain Swift and 400 grain Barnes solid loads on hand. If anybody has ten of the Factory 400 Grain Swift loads to trade, sell, or donate (ha!) I would appreciate it. I will test 5 each at 70 degrees F and 110 degrees F.

I have shot a fair number of the 350 grain loads. Those have seemed pretty reasonable. They are certainly accurate. When I pulled the Barnes load apart today I immediately became uncomfortable. The powder was caked in the case. After I took the powder out and weighed it, I put it back into the case with a drop tube. Even at that it would have taken at least 3/8 of an inch of compression to re-seat the bullet.

My gut instinct at this point is that the 416 Rem Mag case has plenty of room with the 350 grain Swift, probably adequate with a lead cored 400 grain bullet, and marginal to insufficient capacity for use with a monometal bullet if the factory insists on meeting the 2400 fps benchmark in all weather conditions.

The monometal bullets have a tremendously long bearing surface. That is a lot of friction to overcome, and a lot of metal for the lands to displace. That task is more easily done with a larger charge of a slower burning powder in a larger case (eg 416 Rigby). My guess right now is that it makes a lot of sense to use a North Fork or GSC bullet that weighs a bit less than 400 grains. There are two benefits: less intrusion on the powder chamber, decreased friction due to the geometry of the bands on the shaft of the bullet. When using a straight shanked monometal bullet I would recommend going for a velocity goal of 2,350 - 2,370 fps; on a hot day. RL-15 just has too steep of a pressure curve to get a straight shanked monometal bullet of 400 grains out the barrel at present factory velocities without unacceptable pressure excursions. The same issues are present with any of the other powders in the same burning range (Varget, etc.).

If you told an ivory poacher from a ninety years ago that he could have a rifle with a 375 H&H sized action that would send a 400 grain bullet out at 2300 - 2350 fps, safely, in any temperature, for a very reasonable price; he would have done handsprings from Nairobi to Mombasa.

The 416 Rem Mag is a wonderful cartridge. That is why I am selling some dear rifles to build a full up custom on a Winchester action. It is a compromise, as all cartridges are. I for one am happy to live within its capacity limitations. Cases based, directly or indirectly, on the 375 H&H case will always be at a capacity disadvantage for sending larger bullets at higher velocity. It is just physics. There is no percentage in arguing with physics. The percentage is gained by understanding and living with the physics.

JCN

Canuck,
Aha, now I get your point, and I guess that is a correct coorelation, I am loading the 404 to its full potential in my gun, as you are in your particular gun...

A lot of this discussion arises out of the fact that chamber reamers vari a lot in the 404 I suspect..I have used the same Clymer for all my 404 and perhaps that has something to do with it...

Another point that no one seems to be coorelating is that I am using a 27 inch barrel and in some guns that can make a big difference, another is I do not find it unusual for one barrel to another to vari as much as 100 FPS...

And as for Ass Clowns comments, he usually has some very interresting and very informative information. He can be very knowledgable but he tends to muddy the waters to stir up things on purpose, and that devalues his otherwise knowledgable comments on shooting and hunting, and I go off on that when he does...

All in all, its been an interresting and thought provoking topic of conversation, enough so that I will do some more testing on the chronograph at some point but with a shorter barrel, but first I will have to make another 404 J....

AC....But that's not what you said.......What you said, (and I copy and paste):The "improved" cartridges cannot significantly improve internal ballistics without increasing the operating pressure. And what I say, is, Bulls**t...
You give 3 examples of 30 caliber cartridges, and their "improved" counterpoints. But you neglected to reference the most obvious pair, so as not to negate your shaky premise. How about comparing the 300 H&H magnum, and it's ultimate improved version, the 300 Weatherby magnum.
With ANY bullet weight, or style, in ANY equal barrel length, with ANY suitable powder, Roy's 300 Magnum will out perform Holland's 300 magnum, with EQUAL pressures, hands down......Any place, any range, any time......They don't call them "improved" cartridges for nothing....(I could go on about K-Hornets, Donaldson Wasps, etc.)
Now, if you want to add thoughts about efficiency, or slower powder, to bolster your statement, that's fine. And would make a fine start for a new thread...But that's not what your original statement proposed.....Sorry to highjack the thread.....Grant.

Old Model 70,



One of the first things to know to keep your AR experience a serene one is to never talk to an Ass Clown. He can cut and paste, no let me correct that, he can plagiarize with the best of them. He cannot however resist his personality defect driven impulses. One of the first things you learn in medicine is that talking to someone with a personality disorder will make you angry in about 90 seconds. Oh, if only we could push that lovely little ***ignore*** button in daily life as easily as we can here, sigh...



Anyway, here is a picture of the Barnes 400 grain monometal solid and the Swift 350 and 400 grain A-Frames:



There are significant and self explanatory differences in the depths that each bullet intrudes into the case.

JCN

Alf,
Let me answer your question a bit more directly:

Despite my valiant efforts to remain a destitute country doctor I will eventually start making some decent money. I always do. When that sad day comes I will spend most of it hunting in Africa (I will waste the rest). When I take my custom 416 Rem Mag across the pond I sure as fuck will not take any Remington factory loads. I will likely use the factory 350's up in Alaska, but I will carefully load North Forks for the hot work.

JCN

Here are a few more loads I shot today. ONE round was fired of each only.

H 380
80.0 - 2352
82.0 - 2377
84.0 - 2440
86.0 - 2450

90.0 VVN 165 - 2268

97.0 H4831 - 2487

Reloader 19
88.0 - 2300
90.0 - 2363
93.0 - 2463

Oldmodel70,

Ok now your example of an "improved" case I do in fact agree with.

The 300 Weatherby has a capacity of ~ 98 gr
The 300 H&H has a capacity of ~ 86 gr
Difference in volumes ~ 14%

Loaded with IMR4350 in the 300 H&H versus a 300 WM loaded with ~ 14% more IMR7828, and the 300 WM will easily beat the 300 H&H.

When I think of improved cartridges I am stuck with Ackley and Gibbs designs in my head. My comments are directed to the Ackley and Gibbs lines of improved cartridges.

I can guarantee you that an Ackley or Gibbs improved design will outperform the unimproved design, BUT it WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT DO SO WITHOUT HIGHER PRESSURE! As you pour more powder in the pressure goes up, UNLESS you switch to a slower burn rate, which will require that at least 4% more powder be added just to get back to the original unimproved cartridges ballastics. The 300 H&H vs 300 WM can do that because of the LARGE (14%) increase in volume between the two designs, but the Ackley and Gibbs improved cases do not possess significant enough volume improvements to do so (typically the Ackley and Gibbs designs improve volume between 2% and 6%, not nearly enough).

ASS_CLOWN

.

MONSTER THREAD




More Pop corn and beer anyone ?

Cheers,

Andr�

Dam Andr'e, you ought to be fishy-eyed by now.

Yes it got real good. A lot of great info about a round that should be far more popular. My wish list just got bigger. A left-handed 404.
BTW, who down-rated the thread from 5 stars to 3? Poor judge of ring conduct in my view. Could have only gotten better if the fists were flying.

Roger QSL

H450 gave us the following:

90.0 - 2368
93.0 - 2425
95.0 - 2479

VVN 540:

75.0 - 2309
78.0 - 2379
81.0 - 2487
83.0 - 2534
85.0 - 2588

Saeed,

From the following load:
VVN 540:


75.0 - 2309
78.0 - 2379
81.0 - 2487
83.0 - 2534
85.0 - 2588

85 at 2588, how was case extraction?

Roger QSL

All normal. No sign of excessive pressure whatsoever.