What amazes me now is you trying to twist the meaning of things, as usual. It is you implying that we are stupid, no one else.

I know you have a personal agenda in self promotion, so flame on.

------------------
RAB

As for my part I'm satisfied to agree ot disagree...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Loading to those velocities and pressures is just a stunt that defeats the purpose of the 404 Jeffery, which when used properly stands right beside the 416 Rigby when it is also loaded safely.

Thanks to all for their contributions to this discussion.

Ray,
I am glad you agree to disagree. I also agree to disagree on what constitutes pillar bedding, but that is an old one that I am sure has gone nowhere also.

------------------
RAB

I think Ray has said on numerous occassions that loading the 404 over 2400 is futile but he has illustrated what the caliber could do if someone wanted to go that way. However he recommends the loads that do 2400 not the 2600.

Mike

------------------
RAB

Steps of one grain of powder producing 22 fps velocity changes, just fine. Suddenly the data show 111 fps velocity change for each grain of powder increment. One grain of powder in such a big bore case as the 404 J should not do that without a dangerous situation being near at hand. 22 Hornet, yes, 404 J, NO!!!

It is negligent to present data like that without making a comment about what the pressures are likely to be: UNSAFE.

I tried to get Ray A. to offer some comment on the other thread, where I agreed to disagree. No response. Ignored. This topic was not simple BS, but an important point that needed to be acknowledged.

Other persons were not making "trite" or petty criticisms of Ray A., but important ones. Wake up Ray. Don't offer such loads without a comment about potential danger. Do the math.

------------------
RAB

First, I never read your post on another thread or I would have replied, I don't believe anyone can say I have ever failed to respond to a post..

Second, I believe that you have mathamatically accepted the load as dangerous, I on the other hand have not experienced that from a hands on bases, and frankly disagree with you on the whole issue...

I do not believe this load is that hot and would suggest that 50 to 55,000 PSI would be more accurate. I have requested all the 404 owners to see where their individual max loads are and in a responsible way, you included if you own and shoot a 404..

Thirdly, I would like to know what my "hidden agenda" is??, would you kindly put it out there, so that it is no longer hidden, I do like to be right up front with everyone.

I have no problem with you and Alf disagreeing with anything I say, thats is what these boards are all about, I do have a problem with you calling my posts BS..You threw a challange and I responded. My "trite" replies were in direct response to your flaming attack on my integrity. I thought a little humorous reply better than a re-flame..If that in-flamed you then I apoligise to you, it was not ment upset you, but to neutralize the bickering.

I will continue to shoot that load as it is my most accurate load in both my 404's, I will not hunt with it as I feel it is to fast and attacks the integrity of the bullet..It was not a stunt, it is a max load in my gun, three grains below a deep extractor mark and slightly sticky bolt in my gun..

Now the exact same arguement can be made for the 416 Rigby, wherein I and Barnes (book) get 2900 plus with a 400 gr. bullet with 96 grs. of IMR-4831...A load few people shoot but I know a few that swear by it.

Yes, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one and the piller bedding of a Mauser.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

The zeal with which I have pursued this may possibly be attributed to Post-IRS Stress Syndrome, or PISS, exacerbated by excess caffeine intake. It was an amusing outlet for PISS. I am now relieved. Nevertheless, the thread has brought to light some good information.

I have said all I want to say. I apologize if you have been offended. For me it was all quite enjoyable and informative.

------------------
RAB

If the Barnes handbook says you can get 2900fps with 96 grains of IMR 4831 out of a 416 Rigby shooting 400 grain bullets I am here to say that book is WRONG!!

Heres a load for you. 112 grains of IMR 4831 and in two separate Rigby's obtained around 2600 - 2650 fps. That is a pretty hot load also. Work up to it if you are so inclined. I prefer IMR 4350 and Rel 19 for the Rigby. More accurate across the board and higher obtainable velocity (if velocity is your thing).

Just guessing but I would figure that 96 grains of IMR 4831 would get you about 2250 fps shooting 400 grain pills out of a Rigby.

Todd E

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

------------------
Doug Humbarger
NRA Life member

I'll attest to that.

If you do not care to try and work up such a load then that is fine with me, but I will continue to use it in my two Mausers as I have for 20 years, and thats enough time to satisfy myself that it is perfectly safe..

If you are going to get upset with every max load that anyone lists on these talk forums then partner your gonna be real busy, but I grant you that all loads suggested in any forum or any loading book should be approached with CAUTION,

Ever read P.O. Ackleys Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Volume 1 & 2, or Nick Harveys Technical Reloading Manuel, there are many loads in both of these books that will blow primers, and more..

The bottom line in reloading is to cut back 10% and approach ALL loads with caution, if you don't then that is YOUR fault...

The problem today in general, is somebody else is always responsible for another persons actions and that is the "hooey" I am referring too, not at your posts, which I have always respected and seldom if ever taken issue with.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

What I will argue is that you are not taking into consideration certain facts..
1. My gun has a 27" barrel and and that could get me an extra say 75 to 100 FPS.
2. Perhaps my Lothar-Walther barrel is a fast barrel and we all know velocity can vary as much as 100 FPS between barrels.
3. Most importantly taking into consideration 1 and 2, I do not believe that my load is anywhere near 60,000 PSI with IMR-4831, regardless of your calculations.

As a result of this thread I took my Mauser Gild rifle Mod 98 single c ring 10.75x68 re-chambered to 404 Jefferys by John Ricks and fired a number of these loads over my chronograph. I got an average (10 shots) of 2496 FPS from this gun, a reduction of 166 FPS...This lead me to re-chronograph my Custom rifle with the 27" barrel. It failed to produce the quoted 2662 this time but was close at 2590 for a loss of 72 FPS over my original quote...Probably the heat factor.
Case inspection was normal as far as I can tell, primer pockets are tight after all firings when I reloaded them and extraction was slick, I have no indication of the pressures you refer to, and I feel like that you have left out the above numbered varibles..

Again I wish that some of the 404 owners would work up a load with IMR4831 in their 404's and let us know the results.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

All the combatants on this thread might do well to read the article.

How much of the 500 Jeffery's case was filled by that 135 grains of IMR 4350 load? I did not think that you could get that much powder in that case!

How rounds did you put through your 500 Jeffery before the bolt was set back?

Thanks for the information.
Todd E

Do you regard a Model 70 as stronger (locking lug) than Mauser 98. I mention the M70 as it is chambered in the 300 WSM and has locking lugs about M98 size, I think.

Also, the 404 at .545 and the H&H at about .512 means the 404 is about 13% larger in cross section. If the 404 is a problem for the M98 when loaded to current normal max pressures, then surely the 375 must not be far behind.

I know the Mauser 98 was designed around the 30/06 case head size but would that not also be the case with the Model 70?

Mike

I have a question for you based on your comments concerning breach thrust ((Breach thrust =chamber pressure X Cross sectional surface of the case head ( all things else being equal)) related to case design.

Can you factor in the amount of case taper as it applies to the breach thrust?

The reason I ask this is because to me there are fundamentally two different types of case designs.

One, the Ackley type (or non-DGR aka target type) where feeding is not as much as issue thus allowing a minimal taper case. This is typically seen in BR (6mm PPC) for example. To me this design allows for the case to achieve more of a "grip" upon firing thus reducing (potentially a drastic reduction) breach thrust. My recollection is that somebody (it may have been Ackley) did a test where they fired rounds with minimal body taper and NO BOLT to show the effect the case "grab" had.

The second type would be a tapered case (e.g., 375 H&H or 404 Jeffery) more suited to a hunting situation (DGR) where feeding is much more important than improving a 1 MOA rifle to 1/4 MOA. It's my impression (I wish I could quote specifics here) through information I've read through the years that breach thrust is much greater in this type of case design.

I don't have the mathematical answer but you seemed to have done your homework so I thought you might have a fundamental answer of how case taper impacts breach thrust.

My guess is that it is probably a much greater impact than most people would think and simply cannot be eliminated as a variable..."all else being equal."

I look forward to your thoughts (and others too) on this matter.

Reed

I thought that you might find this information of interest. I measured some sectioned cartridges I have and calculated the rearward thrust force. The calculations are thrust generated by the resistance of the cartridge pressure.

Cartridges are:

308 Win; ID of case @ base = 0.345"
416 Rigby; ID of case @ base = 0.445"
500 AHR (Jeffery);ID of case @ base = 0.450"

Thrust force is equal to the chamber pressure times the surface area of the cartridge ID at the base.

Surface areas are:
308 = 0.093
416 = 0.156
500 = 0.159

Chamber pressures are as follow:
308 = 54,000 psi (mil spec)
416 = 40,000 psi (original factory load ?)
500 = 36,000 psi (original factory load ?)

Thrust forces are:
308 Win = 5022 lbs.
416 Rigby = 6240 lbs
500 AHR (Jeffery) = 5724 lbs.

If we were to equate the thrust forces of the 416 Rigby and 500 Jeffery to that of the 308 Win we would have operating pressures of:

416 Rigby = 32,190 psi
500 AHR (Jeffery) = 31,585 psi

Note:
1.) The operating pressure for the 500 AHR (Jeffery) is actually the original factory load pressure for the 500 Jeffery. The AHR is loaded to about 42,000 psi per Ed Plummer.

2.) The 500 AHR & 500 Jeffery only have .015" of total OD measured body taper over a distance of approximately 2.2". Put another way they have a minimal almost nonexistent body taper! That should minimum the mechanical advantage that could be realized by the rearward thrust. The Rigby and 404 Jeffery have considerably more bady taper (Rigy is .050" over approximately 2.2" I am not sure about the 404 Jeffery).

Seems like the Rigby is the heaviest hitter. Even though it is not the hardest hitter.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 04-24-2002).]

A gunsmith in Australia, Jack Black, was Australia's version of Ackley. I never met Jack but his sone Don, was the similar. My father became very good friends with Don Black as dad was a motor mechanic and they could do some "swapping".

Back in those days we used the M17 a real lot. For firing big loads we always took off the extractor.

M98s were also used by other gunsmiths but Don was mainly M17.

Now admittedly those actions were a lot "younger" in the 60s and early 70s.

With all the experimenting I have never seen a rifle let go at the lugs. The case head always blows. Actually, it is hard to damage an M17 when the extractor is off. Of course the extractor will be ruined if left on.

I am of the opinion that if the combination of load and caliber and action is such that action set back will occur, then accuracy is gone.

Use to see that all the time with SMLEs.

I am also of the opinion that if rifle is OK etc. and a shooter starts coming up 1 grain at a time he will never be able to hurt anything (except sometimes burn the bolt face) as long as he only uses his hand to open the bolt handle. Using ramrods and mallets is different story.

As to the Wby, I think it, like the Rem 700, is basically gimmicky.

The worst feature of the Rem 700 (apart from poor primary extraction and cam forward due to wide locking lugs) is the excessive case head protrusion.

I also think that action set back that is sometimes measured is due to poor locking lug contact and the "slack" is taken up.

Many years ago I saw an overload fired ina 378 Wby. The action did set back, maybe a couple of thou. How we knew that was because after the shot previous fired cases now had a couple of thou headspace, without being resized.

So in the interests of furthering science we fired the load again, but this time no increase in head space.

But again, I think if Ray's load was capable of setting that action back and being dangerous with it, then he would have big accuracy problems.

Lastly, I do agree with you that a lot of older literature spends time on action set back. However gas control has always been big. In fact Wby and Rem really got into that act.

Action set back is again back in fashion. Perhaps the Oehler 43 and other strain guages have caused this.

The biggest change I have seen in recent years is that Winchester brass in particular, but also Remington is much softer.

I believe that this is partly litigation as the soft brass shows pressure signs at much lower pressures and as you know ejector marks etc. at pressures required for very hard brass are far closer to a danger problem than the ejector marks with soft brass.

I assume we gte the same brass as Americans. Bulk Rem brass would be the same as we get that from Hutingtons but Winchester comes from winchester Australia but it is made in the USA. I mention this because Americans (with the exception of John S, who I have spoken to about this) don't seem to complain a about soft brass. Although if the forums are any indicator, then I would say Australians generally use hotter loads than Americans.

I think australians tend to have the attitude that if it is the Hornady manual then it probably wrong whereas American tend to think it is right because it is in the Hornady manual. Perhaps our convict background and attitude to authority is palying a part

Years ago Winchester Super X had that bluish tinge around the head and now it looks like the brass used in a door handle.

Newer Winchester brass is also a different structure in the solid head. The older cases were just a concave shape across the head. New brass has what looks like a little primer pocket inserted into the solid head.

Mike

For the record, more true Custom Rifles are made on Mauser 98 Actions than any other make of action by a long shot, followed by the Win. pre 64 MOd. 70 and that is discounting the "simi customs" with fiberglass stocks and SS barrel..

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

My personal opinion is, there are many folks who like to claim certain loads safe, without having the technical means to qualify and quantify those statements.

Ray,

That is certainly the case in Australia and I think a major reason for the M98 being used is that it allows the project to be kicked off with a much smaller outlay than would be the case for a Pre 64 or even a new M70.

Paul,

I still know of no other way for reliable pressure testing than the combination of the case and accuracy.

Even steel headed cases will lose the accuracy.

In my opinion (and with brass cases), if the primer pockets are OK for 5 shots then you are at the top end. If brass is soft and the caliber has a big case for the bore size (calibers like 7mm STW etc. often retain accuracy to higher pressure than rounds like the 375 H&H) and a very good barrel in a well bedded rifle, then primer pockets might open after a couple of shots with a peak accuracy load. Such a combination with soft brass might open a primer pocket on the first shot if the barrel has been cleaned with something like Sweets 7.62 and the Sweets not cleaned out with an oil type cleaner.

In my experience rifles with bedding problems will frequently deliver good accuracy at low pressure loads but be inaccurate with higher pressure loads.

I know this extreme, but to illustrate, I can work up a safe load with cases made of pure copper. On the other hand if I had an Oehler 43 and worked up to accepted pressure readings then I sure would have some fun with pure copper cases

Mike

I agree the bolt thrust issue is a valid concern , but I also think that a very bulky slow powder like 4831 should be very forgiveing to work with in such a large bore cartridge ; much more so than stuff like 748 ball or Reloader 15 . Ray should probably just whack his barrel back down to 22 inches or so . Likely he'd be back down around 2400 fps , and no one would get excited .......

To be a spoiler, my 35 whelen ackley M98 seems to have defied your examples. It would only shoot accurately with loads that had the brass flowing into the extractor slot, and this with two different stocks. I had it re-chambered to a 350 Rigby, we'll see if that helps achieve accuracy at reasonable pressures.

I stand by my statement that many folks have the attitude, I ain't yet blown up a gun, so I know what safe pressure levels are, dispite having no way to measure what those levels are.

Kinda like auto racing, you can really wring some hp out of an engine, w/o calculating what you have to do to throw a rod, but it doesn't mean you aren't running on the hairy edge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atkinson:
DaggaRon,

It was not a stunt, it is a max load in my gun, three grains below a deep extractor mark and slightly sticky bolt in my gun..

---

Ray whilst I am the first to admit my knowledge of reloading is probably a tenth of yours I personaly take the view that to deliberately go seek an ejector mark or a sticky bolt in order to establish the limit for what is not even going to be used as a hunting load is very near to a dangerous stunt.

The 2522 fps load quoted WAS a 400 gr A-Square solid ............Sitton also ran up 350 gr spitzers to 2631 and 300 gr bullets up to 2789 fps ........all in a 24 inch barrel .

It is my understanding that the modern RWS loads run some 2400 fps (400 gr bullets) out of 24 inch barrels . Do you consider those to be excessive in original .404 rifles ?

We can mike head expansion, but what about soft brass? so that has to be eleminated...We use primers and primer pockets as an indicator and for the record I sometimes get an extractor mark before I get loose primer pockets with new brass (always work up loads with new brass) or I may get an ever so slightly sticky bolt before I get a extractor mark, so which ever comes first when one is working up one grain at a time, then as you approach max shift to .5 gr. at a time.. I pay attention to the chronograph and I look at my cases after each shot. I let the gun tell me what it will or will not do...When I arrive at max then I will see how many reloadings I can get with a single case..I have found on many guns that I can go over book max by about two grains on average, even more in some cases but I have chosen not to do that..I have done all these procedures with my 404 btw.

Now if you have discovered a better way for us peons to arrive at a max load then I would like to hear it.

I am one of those who has never blown a rifle in 50 years plus, and loaded literally millions of rounds. I probably have 10,000 rounds of loaded ammo on any given day in my shop. I have blown a number of primers and on very rare ocassions seperated a head or two, and once blew an ejector off a Mod. 70 due to a misprint in a loading book, and that was a starting load..

When I started handloading some 50 plus years ago, we had no computers, and we didn't have all these experts to expound on their knowledge. We had to wing it and lord knows how we survived but we did...I am not sure that these same practices are as common today as they were then...

With the rare exception, all the guns I have seen blow "apart", that could have injured anyone were my beloved M-70's because they are a bit brittle and prone to fragment, not by a grain of two of excess powder, but by accidently dropping the wrong powder in the case such as Bullseye and Unique with the powder measure set for H4831....this is where the injuries come from...The other real danger zone is the 243 Win when the throat erodes and one shoots 100 gr. bullets in it..

those are your danger zones my friends, not a extractor mark on a case...IMHO

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com