I have a new Model 70 custom from Mark Stratton with octagon barrel. The barrel is a Shilen; 25" (24" from the receiver); #4 taper.

I shot it for the first time yesterday using a 150 gr. Ballistic Tip & 70 gr. of IMR 4350 from the Nosler #4 manual. Winchester brass; fully preped. Expecting around 3300 fps but only got 3050 fps. MAX. with flattened primers and the beginning of cratering.

The length of the cartridge is limited to the magazine box and is 3.620 OAL.

Any ideas why I am seeing such pressure with velocity so low? This load is listed as max in the book. I could understand the pressure signs with this being a max load but not the low velocity. I haven't tried any other loads.

Accuracy was great if I only shot two rounds.

All thoughts are welcome.

Cheers,

Sam
eclemmons@hotmail.com

Two thoughts come to mind. (Well, there was a third, but a quick check of IMR's online manual indicates your charge was reasonable.)

The first was a fat necked case combined with narrow necked chamber. A similar problem might, or course, occur if the chamber is a trifle short or the neck a trifle long.

The second thought was primers, which can have a bigger effect on pressure than most people would guess. If you keep old copies of Handloader, try the 6/04 issue. Barsness tested (piezo rig) effects of primers on a .300 Win Mag, and found he could raise pressures 25% just by switching primers.

The surprising thing is that pressure swings caused by components (or tight necks) have relatively little effect on velocity. For the most part, mass ratio (gn charge per gn bullet) and expansion ratio determine velocity. A more "spikey" pressure curve (caused by primers or pinched necks) doesn't compensate for insufficient powder or a long enough barrel.

Anyway, I'd check necks and chambers first and then primers. (And are you certain you poured 4350 into that case?)

asdf,

Thanks.
Forgot to mention the primer. Federal Magnum 'Gold Medal Match'.

I'll turn the necks and trip the length and see how that works.

Yes, I am certain about the powder & charge, but thanks for asking.

Cheers,

Sam

Every bbl. is diff. Try slugging to measure the groove dia. If the bore is slightly oversize this could be the reason for lower vel. I would also NOT use a magnum primer under 4350. Try a std. match primer instead. I find pressures seem more uniform w/ a std. primer & only use them for ball powders in cold weather.

Do a chamber cast, pay attention to the freebore/leade/throat area. just a couple thousanths over bullet diameter here can and will cost you 250fps. Don't ask me how I know this.

The first thing I would do is try a different kind of powder. Granted your velocities are low, but it could just be the powder in combination with the gun. Get yourself a pound of RL19 and give that a shot. The second suggestion is just a recap of what the other guys mentioned. I don't think slugging the bore is going to tell you anything, as every Shilen barrel I've ever had was right on the money, however the throat on it might be short as previously mentioned. That would be what I would lean towards the most aside from the powder.

Hi Big Sam
I've been shooting .300 H&H for years and you're load is just about right with what I have recorded from that load. For my rifle, that load is very accurate in warm weather and is my standard antelope load.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have found Nosler data to be highly exaggerated as far as velocity goes. I have never gotten the kind of numbers they get with the loads they publish.
I would definitely seek out other data sources make some comparisons before venturing out with max loads.
Also remember that YOUR rifle is unique and it will shoot what it likes to shoot at the velocity it shoots it, so don't be surprised if your results differ from what is published in loading manuals.
If you would like to ask some specific questions about loads feel free to send me a private message..
Have fun with your new .300

Big Sam

I agree with RDub, Nosler's data seems a bit inflated. A quick check of your load in QuickLoad indicates about 3125 fps with a chamber pressure of 55,300 psi. Considering that each rifle is unique, it seems that the load is producing about what it should and that the pressure signs are correct.

I use old army surplus 4831 AKA 4560 DATA Powder, that you probably cannot find today, but I use Fed Mag. primers 215, 73 grs. of the stuff and get an easy 3037 FPS with 200 gr. Noslers or Woodleighs..

Most of the reloading manuals show about 3313 FPS with 72 grs of H4831 with 150 gr. bullets..71 grs of H4350 shows 3250 average.

Maybe you should have your smith look it over and let him solve the problem, he built the gun. could be the magazine is short, bore is large, or several other things come to mind..Keep in mind a tight chamber or a tight bore would normally up pressure and give you more velocity.

Only thing about a long throat is pressures should be quite a bit less * BS is showing pressure signs w/ low vel.

The lower velocity is consistent with the reduced charge of 4350. It seems likely it is something causing the bullet to be delayed. For what it's worth, SAAMI max for the neck of a loaded .300 H&H cartridge is 0.338" over the entire length of the neck.

As for the primer, load book formulas must be followed exactly or all bets are off. Here are the numbers Barsness got (I didn't record the powder):

 primer      fps    psi

CCI BR2	    2920   55800
Fed 215 M   2964   63800
WLRM        2991   70100

Again, note that fps didn't really change all that much despite the 25% increase in pressure.

quote:

Originally posted by BIG SAM:
...Any ideas why I am seeing such pressure with velocity so low? ...Accuracy was great if I only shot two rounds.

Hey BIG SAM, This is one of the Main Reasons I recommend people Develop Loads "without" a Chronograph.

Here you have what sounds like an excellent custom made rifle and even though the Accuracy is Excellent, it has you all concerned about the Velocity.

Over the years I've been fortunate to be able to compare a lot of rifles in the same calibers. One I currently have has an extremely tight Bore and is the most accurate rifle I've ever had in that same caliber. The trade off is it isn't quite as "fast" as the previous one and MAXes out at 4gr less of the same Powder I used in the previous one.
---

There are plenty of fine Powders for the 300H&H. You might want to try H4831 and see what kind of Accuracy it provides. I'd just not be all that concerned with Velocity.

On the other hand, if Velocity is what you absolutely have to have, use ANY of the Bore Polishing Systems to "wear out your barrel" and if used enough, they will open the dimensions so you can get blistering speed. Just don't expect Accuracy, though you might get fortunate and have enough to make a person happy - for a short while.

71 gr of IMR 4350 in my M70 with 26" bbl. clocks 3090 with 150 Hornady s.p. So it sounds like you are about on as far as velocity goes.
C.G.B.

Many thanks to all that have responded.

With regards to what has been written, I submit the following:

Unfired case dimensions:
Length 2.815
Neck .330
Belt .530
Base .530
Length at shoulder 3.360

Fired case dimensions:
Length 2.822
Neck .342
Belt .530
Belt .530
Length at shoulder 3.375

OAL loaded 3.615

As for velocity: No, I am not looking to get a certain velocity, I was just expecting closer that I got. Apparently I don't need to follow that as much; although it has been pretty much right on with other guns.

I will try my favorite H4831 SC to see what I get as well as the RL 19. I will also back this load off a grain to see how it does. From the measurements taken, I don't see that there was too much pressure.

I have a call into Mark to see what he has to say but I expect that he used a standard reamer. He's not into target type rifles.

I will report the next results as they occur.

Thanks again to all.

Cheers,

Sam

quote:

I recommend people Develop Loads "without" a Chronograph

I beg to differ, Hot Core.

Consider our friend Sam. Without the chronograph reading, he wouldn't have known his fps was reasonable for the charge he used. If the pressure signs prove to be true (primers, like case head expansion, aren't very reliable), this would be his clue that something was changing the pressure curve from its usual shape to one thinner and with the higher peak. A peakier pressure curve is caused by something getting the powder going quicker (primer is one possiblity) or keeping the bullet from getting out of the way (neck, chamber, etc.).

I do agree one can't "chronograph pressure," as Powley once hoped to do. However, if you are using the exact components from the load book (primer, powder, bullet, case), I do think one can adjust the charge to get the fps expected. (I know Barsness tested this theory once, but I can't find it in my notes.)

If one substitutes components, one must expect the pressure and velocity relationship to change. However, from what I read into the numbers I've seen, if you back off on the expected fps by 5% and adjust the charge to this velocity, I think you'll be safe. At least that's the way I do it.

Big Sam: that neck dimension from the fired cases combined with unfired case length pretty much rule out the bullet being pinched. Are you using the primer from Nosler's book? Could there have been too much oil in the bore? Perhaps it simply is a matter of the primer "signs" not reflecting the true pressure. Do let us know what you find in your further tests. One's never too old to learn from others...

.012+ clearance on the neck? I most definatly would be checking the throat diameter in that barrel.
With a 26" tube and a .311 throat I got 2735fps with my standard 30-06 load, shortening the barrel to 25" and cutting it to a .309 throat produced 2995fps with the same load (same batch even).

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
...Without the chronograph reading, he wouldn't have known his fps was reasonable for the charge he used. ...

Hey asdf, The "chronograph" giving him a Velocity below what he expected is what created his concern.

If he had left the chronograph at the house, gone and shot the fine groups while using the normal Pressure Indicators available to everyone, he would still be happy. And the Game he will eventually be shooting would never know the difference.

Now he is in a situation where he is concerned about an obviously well built and accurate rifle(even though it is a M70) and it has degraded a bit of the enjoyment he should be experiencing. Or so it seems to me.

Even if he had waited until all the Load Development was done and then chronographed the Final Load, it still would have been negative as far as he is concerned when compared to the Manuals.

Darn shame, but that is the what the misleading chronographs end up doing most of the time.
---

quote:

However, if you are using the exact components from the load book (primer, powder, bullet, case), I do think one can adjust the charge to get the fps expected.

That is the kind of "misleading reasoning" that bothers me the most.

A Rookie will read your comment and get the impression that he can SAFELY just keep dumping in Powder until he gets whatever the listed Velocity is in a Manual. Maybe, but also maybe not. And since the "maybe not" portion is a possibility, then it would be totally irresponsible for someone like me who knows better to let the statement go without mentioning it is TOTALLY MISLEADING and HALF COMPLETELY WRONG.

Chronographs can be good tools, but not when used as you suggest.

Best of luck to you and especially if you continue to use yours improperly.

I must agree one shouldn't keep dumping in powder, ignoring charge weight. If an extra gn or so is needed to reach the book fps when using the listed components, I can't see a problem. The extra gn can compensate for a slightly slow batch of powder or a slightly loose bore. Adding more than that surely signals something is not right -- perhaps the chronogpraph, for instance. I do stand corrected.

OK, enough from me on this. Shouldn't you be off divining pressure by measuring case expansion, or is it a crystal ball you prefer?

quote:

Originally posted by BIG SAM:
Many thanks to all that have responded.

With regards to what has been written, I submit the following:

Unfired case dimensions:
Length 2.815
Neck .330
Belt .530
Base .530
Length at shoulder 3.360

Sam

Are you sure that the unfired neck diameter is 0.330"? The spec drawing for the 300 H&H shows a neck diameter of 0.338".

0.012" of neck expansion is huge.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
I must agree one shouldn't keep dumping in powder, ignoring charge weight. If an extra gn or so is needed to reach the book fps when using the listed components, I can't see a problem. The extra gn can compensate for a slightly slow batch of powder or a slight loose bore. Adding more than that surely signals something is not right -- perhaps the chronogpraph, for instance. I do stand corrected.

Hey asdf, I've thought about my last post a good bit since I whammed it in and am sure it sounds like I was working you over. I also know this is hard to believe but that was not my intent. Just a difficult day and pitiful word choosing on my part.

Now, I actually agree with what you are saying above - in most rifles. There is a problem though believing it is SAFE for all rifles of a specific caliber though.

The most recent example I've witnessed first-hand was when I sold an older Teflon coated, Ram Line stocked 7mmRemMag Ruger M77 that was perfectly SAFE to load 3.0gr "over" the MAX Load shown in most Manuals. It did fine with that Load and I got extremely long case life.

Took a buddy and his Nephew to the Range one day and we had a fine time shooting. My last two shots from the old Ruger overlapped. When we went down to the Targets, the Nephew was jumping all over the place because of the group. I told him it was quite a problem if you fired "3-shots" because it shot so tight it would just close the hole right back up. So, the Nephew just had to have that rifle.

Got a new S&S 7mmRemMag M700 and went through my normal routine to get ready for Load Development. Went to the Range and found out the SAFE MAX for it was a full 4.0gr "below" the old Ruger and 1.0gr "below" Manual MAX.

I do like a SAFE MAX Load in all my rifles when I'm hunting. I don't used Reduced Loads then. But, if I tried to use 1.0gr over Manual MAX in this rifle, it would bind the action for sure.

So, a person "might" be able to do as you suggested, but there are also lots of rifles where "adding Powder" to reach an arbitrary Velocity shown in a Manual just isn't a good idea. I hope I explained it better this time.
---

By the way, my main concern is for the Rookies and Beginners who really don't have enough experience Reloading to know when somehting that works part of the time, just doesn't work all the time and is therefore mis-leading to them.

We have one on the Board right now who is trading rifles as hard as he can go because he thinks a Randomly Picked Load should shoot under 1" in any rifle of a specific caliber. He is the exact kind of person who could get in way over his head if he had a chronograph and followed the notion that it is OK to jus tkeep "dumping in Powder" until some arbitrary Velocity is reached.

quote:

OK, enough from me on this. Shouldn't you be off divining pressure by measuring case expansion, or is it tea leaves you prefer?

Yes - to both!!!
---

Hey BIG SAM, If you go back and look through the responses, you will notice a good many of them are saying they are seeing Velocities very close to what you are getting.

Best of luck to you and ENJOY that new rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by BIG SAM:
Unfired case dimensions:
Length 2.815
Neck .330
Belt .530
Base .530
Length at shoulder 3.360

Fired case dimensions:
Length 2.822
Neck .342
Belt .530
Belt .530
Length at shoulder 3.375

OAL loaded 3.615

It appears you are FL sizing your brass judging from the significant "growth" of OAL after sizing and firing. Since it's a belted case it's likely the headspace is OK but many times with that kind of FL sizing, the sloppiness of the forward part of the case can give you some physical signs of excessive pressure where none really exists. You'd be best off neck sizing that cartridge anyway. It's not likely to grow enough ever to require FL sizing. Try a couple of cases sized just enough to let the cartridge chamber. That could be your problem and the solution.

Great commentary and questions!!

I have double checked the cases with a verified zero on the caliper.

The unfired cases are the same. The fired cases are looking more like .338 with some up to .339-.340. I stand on my original measurements. The cases are now cleaned when remeasured and some residue that was on them may have given the thicker measurements. I don't know.

I talked to Mark Stratton today and he said that he does ream with a tighter than standard neck. I was wrong.
He also ran a program on my load and said that it reported the load was in excess. The velocity was a slightly higher than what I actually got.
He recommends that I turn the necks on new brass.

I was using new Winchester brass that was not sized prior to loading. I did the primer pockets, flash holes, length, case mouth, and tumbled. As a routine, I do not size new brass. After the first firing I will turn the necks and trim for length and clean the primer pockets.

So..................with the information that you all have been so kind to provide and after talking to Mark, I will turn the necks, decrease my load of IMR 4350; try my beloved H4831 SC and go to my intended bullet, North Forks. I'll report the results.

In conclusion, I feel that I allowed myself to be misled by the manual as well as past experience, remembering that each rifle is one within it's self and compensate for a tight neck. As always, I just resize the neck and bump the shoulder back 2 thousanths on fired brass.

Any recommendations? Until the next time.............keep your powder dry.

Cheers,

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

If he had left the chronograph at the house, gone and shot the fine groups while using the normal Pressure Indicators available to everyone, he would still be happy. And the Game he will eventually be shooting would never know the difference.

Chronographs have ruined many otherwise loving relationships.

Big Sam: thanks for the update. Those new numbers don't rule out a tight neck. I do hope you let us know how it goes (fps and primer appearance) after you try a few thinner necks. I, for one, am quite curious about it.

I see I misread your original post. You started with the max. load and found worrisome primers and lowish fps. The first thing I did was go check the IMR listing for a 150 gn bullet and found a heavier charge, so I got it in my head you were using a starting load from the Nosler manual. The fps you first saw seems reasonable. I believe Nosler uses pressure barrels, and those usually give higher velocites for a given load. Throw in another 150 fps possible for powder lot variations, and the 250 fps low is not unreasonable.

As for the primer's appearance, I went digging through my notes, and I find I should have called into question using primer appearance as a signal of high pressures. The A-Square manual has a lovely picture which shows why primers are nearly useless for gauging pressure. A 65,000 CUP load (a little short of proof pressures) fired in a factory rifle gave a primer which looked fine. A 45,000 CUP load in another rifle displayed the nastiest looking cratered primers I've seen (the culprit was a weak mainspring).

If after you rule out binding in the neck, and if you are using all the same components as Nosler listed, you should be able to go up another gn or two. You might see if the 'smith modified the firing mechanism to improve trigger pull, etc.; you certainly shouldn't get cratering in a new rifle with modern primers. The primer is good for very high pressures; perhaps your rifle isn't giving it the support it needs for even a standard 52,000 CUP.

You mentioned he "ran a program on my load". That sounds like he used QuickLOAD. While a useful tool, do note it can be off by 10,000 psi at times.

By the way, if you don't already have it, the A-Square manual is the best single reference I've seen on the effects of component changes -- highly recommended. I've found similar numbers in other references, but the A-Square puts them all in one place.

Hot Core: really, I don't worry about your jabs. It was wrong not to note there are limits to how far one should go in adding powder to reach book fps. It was a good catch. I stand by my assertion it's ok (within limits!) to chase book fps when using all the same components. I also stand by my recommendation to drop fps expectation by 5% if any component is changed. I'll also keep using my chronograph to limit my load development, and I'll never try case expansion. So there!

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
... I'll also keep using my chronograph to limit my load development, and I'll never try case expansion. So there!

I can understand your "logic" - if you have a head injury! Make that a SERIOUS head injury!!!

Best of luck with your Method.

quote:

Originally posted by BIG SAM:
So..................with the information that you all have been so kind to provide and after talking to Mark, I will turn the necks, decrease my load of IMR 4350; try my beloved H4831 SC and go to my intended bullet, North Forks. I'll report the results.

In conclusion, I feel that I allowed myself to be misled by the manual as well as past experience, remembering that each rifle is one within it's self and compensate for a tight neck. As always, I just resize the neck and bump the shoulder back 2 thousanths on fired brass.

Any recommendations? Sam

I would NOT turn the necks. I'd judge it's an exercise in futility, unless you love neck turning.

From the dimensions of your fired brass, .342", you've got more than enough clearance. Measure the necks of YOUR brass with bullet seated. I'll bet you'll have a measurement of no more than .338" and likely less. The fired brass indicates a neck chamber measurment of at least .342" but more likely .343" or .344" allowing for at least .001" springback in your new brass. That gives you CLEARANCE of well over .002" per side, more likely .003". That's more than enough. Unless you love to neck turn! You won't gain a thing by turning the necks.

Work up the load in the recommended methods, not by starting at the max load in the manual.

The idea of developing loads without the use of a chronograph, provided you own or have access to one, is absolutely ridiculous.

Without a chronograph, you are literally shooting in the dark. Holes on a piece of paper can only tell you so much. A chonograph will fill in the rest of what you don't know about your loads. I've used a chronograph as a load development tool for over twenty years, and have owned the same Oehler 33 for the last eighteen years. It's an indispensible tool if you'll put it to use and can properly interpret what it's telling you..........

AD

quote:

Originally posted by allen day:
The idea of developing loads without the use of a chronograph, provided you own or have access to one, is absolutely ridiculous.

Without a chronograph, you are literally shooting in the dark. Holes on a piece of paper can only tell you so much. A chonograph will fill in the rest of what you don't know about your loads. I've used a chronograph as a load development tool for over twenty years, and have owned the same Oehler 33 for the last eighteen years. It's an indispensible tool if you'll put it to use and can properly interpret what it's telling you..........

AD

Reminds me of the brilliant fellow who once said:

"It is much better to remain silent and let everyone think of you as a poorly-educated, loud-mouth, blow-hard, braggart than to make a post which removes all doubt that you are as dumb as a Gum Stump!"....Anonymous

Big Sam,

You need a handloading 101 refresher course. Your new username could just as easily have been "blown to a zillion pieces Sam."

Perhaps you need to review the most basic step in working UP a load and that is you never start at a MAX load and work DOWN. You deserve the dunce cap of the day award. I hope you are not teaching others your ass-backward technique.

Also, the proper way to measure any barrel is from the boltface to the muzzle. That dimension is your barrel length.

Chronographs have always been an integral part of the reloading process as aside from the obvious benefit of velocity, it affords you other indications of possible problems like erratic velocities, standard deviations, etc. Those observations are COMPLIMENTARY to the other standard indications available to the layman that we all know about. Here's the bootom line; name me one bullet company that does not use a chrono for load development. To think otherwise is absurd. jorge

Didn't Phil Shoemaker recently write about using a chronograph to establish a base line pressure measurement, by using factory ammo? He argued that one could then use that base line to compare against hand loads.

Although not the perfect measurement setup, this does seem to be a reasonable use.

I for one would not work up a load with out one. Primer flattening, etc is all well and good, but all it takes is to see that your velocity numbers are substantially higher than expected to know to back off.

FWIW,

-Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Steve:
Didn't Phil Shoemaker recently write about using a chronograph to establish a base line pressure measurement, by using factory ammo? He argued that one could then use that base line to compare against hand loads. ...

Hey Steve, Any chance at all you have a Hodgdon Manual #26? If you do, look at the data on page 356 for the 150gr bullet in a 30-06 and then let me know if you believe the above portion of your post still makes sense.

If you don't have it, I can post it, but I'd prefer not to have to enter it.

HC,

I don't have that manual. So if you post it, I'll be glad to read and comment.

-Steve

(I talk too much.)

To me, the best defense for using the chronograph in load development is the A-Sqaure manual, but even they add the all important caveat: you must be using a chamber and barrel within SAAMI specs. Big Sam was told he has a tight chamber (what else was changed in the chamber drawing?), so neck turning is a wise test.

It is the changes in pressure due to component substitutions that A-Square and others document which leads me to knock 5% off the velocity prediction if any component is changed from load book. I must admit, A-Square's numbers for lot to lot variations make me wonder if it is always sound to chase the load book fps, although with a good bolt gun I would -- with, say, my break open Contender, that's another matter.

Bob338: I believe Big Sam posted a correction to those numbers. His comment "fired cases are looking more like .338" combined with his 'smith's comment a tight chamber was used leads him to test neck turning.

Hot Core: your reliance on case expansion and primer appearance is why gun engineers must put such high factors of safety into their designs.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
...Hot Core: your reliance on case expansion and primer appearance is why gun engineers must put such high factors of safety into their designs.

Hey asdf, If you ever get on this side of the salt water, let me know. I do believe I would enjoy sharing some Iced Tea(from the tea leaves you mentioned) and Trigger Yanking time with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve:
... I don't have that manual. So if you post it, I'll be glad to read and comment...

Hey Steve, Good. I've been thinking about this since I posted and believe there is an easier way for us to get to the same point.

You pick a factory cartridge that you have actually chronographed and tell me what that cartridge is. Or pick one from Mr. Shoemaker's article.

Then you need to list the following about those Factory Cartridges:
1. The Bullet weight.
2. The Velocity.
3. The indicated "Pressure" that the chronograph is supposed to be able to provide according to Mr. Shoemaker's Method.
4. The actual "Powder" used by the Factory in their cartridges.
---

Surely we can both agree that using "different" Powders in a Cartridge will create different Velocities and Pressures.
---

Notice I didn't mention barrel length, the actual bullet being used in the Test or the type of Primer. If it helps in Mr. Shoemakers "Method" feel free to include it.

By the way, I hope either you end up agreeing with me, or, I end up agreeing with you and Mr. Shoemaker's Method.

Once I see what you post, I'll go to the Hodgdon Manual and provide some data for us to discuss.

Look forward to the discussion.

H.C.,

Easier for you...

I'd be glad to go through the experiment, as I was thinking about doing it anyway. I have to find the article first though.

I just went through usual spots where I 'drop' magazines and haven't been able to find it. I suspect that my wife might have mistaken my filing system with the recycling pile, however.

If I find article I'll play with things and let you know my results. In the mean time If you could paraphrase the passage for the manual we could get started on the conversation.

-Steve

.

quote:

used by Homer Powley and his "computers"

ALF: It's always nice to meet another fan of Powley's. I'm trying to make a modern version of the old slide rules available to any reloader with an internet browser. I've got it into a half-way presentable form, and I'd be pleased if you'd care to look it over and give a critique. There's nothing to download; the browser handles the math. It's located here.

Hot Core: You might be able to get your wish. I'm American, and my sister lives north of you, in Richmond. Perhaps I could cure you of your addiction to PRE.

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
...Hot Core: You might be able to get your wish. I'm American, and my sister lives north of you, in Richmond. Perhaps I could cure you of your addiction to PRE.

Hey asdf, Right at the moment I'm just Northeast of Lousiville and it looks like I'm going to be here for awhile. I sure miss the Carolinas.

I've probably been using the never improved upon PRE and CHE longer then you have been alive, so it is well rooted. Always willing to learn though.

Of course, anyone with even a passing bit of knowledge concerning Internal Ballistics understands there is a very poor corelation between Velocity and Pressure. Totally different from the relationship Mr. Powley devised with his device.