Recently acquired a .300H&H Ruger No. 1. It was a trade a couldn't turn down. Anyway, in researching the .300H&H I've noticed that a gentleman by the name of Ben Comfort used Western factory loads to win the 1000 yard Wimbledon Cup at Camp Perry in 1935. All I know about the ammunition is that it was 180 grain FMJ BT. Does anybody have additional information on this particular Western factory ammo during that period. I'm interested in duplicating the ammo or finding an equivalent to load. Thanks in advance.

The first thing I remember offhand is that he used a Western match loading made by the factory with a mercuric primer (The " Western 8G" primer IIRC), which rendered his brass unreloadable immediately upon firing.

As soon as you use a different primer, you are using a different load, so I'd suggest just using the best loads your own experimentation produces.

(P.S.: Non-mercuric primers had been introduced well before that, but the mercuric primer produced more accurate ammo in Western's tests, so they continued with it in their .300 H&H "Match" ammo for many years.)

Will do. Thanks.

I got my hands on a 1936 Western Cartridge Co. handbook. The only listing for the .300H&H is a 220 gr. BT @2550 fps. So, I've seen a 1935/36 Western advertisement with a picture of Ben and his use of Western factory ammo to win at Camp Perry. Only Ben used a 180 gr. bullet. Interesting.

Lee Harvey Oswald used WCC ammo too. Even though much less time has elapsed since 1963 it is hard to determine that on the internet as well.

I checked my files and found the actual load used by Ben Comfort in winning the 1935 Wimbledon Cup.

His ammunition was custom hand-loaded by Western for him. Talk about confidence, he had never fired the Wimbledon course before and told them he wanted this particular load, to win it with. They loaded it, and he won it, with a score one X short of a new record at the time!

Anyway, the load used Western brass, but without the final neck anneal. That was done to increase the "pull weight", which he wanted increased so it would assure complete burning of the powder charge for each round fired, thereby increasing the consistency of the load. And as we all know, more consistency can mean better accuracy. Today it MIGHT be possible to achieve the same result with completely standard annealed necks, just by sizing them down an extra thousandth or two in neck diameter before first loading the brass.

The powder was Dupont 1185. You can't get that any more as it was discontinued just before the 1940s, and was replaced with Dupont 1186 which was very marginally slower burning. During WWII, that in turn was discontinued for cannistered sale and U.S. military use, and was replaced with IMR 4895.

Some lots of 4895 were as slow as H-4831, and some lots were as fast as IMR 3031, so what it was originally intended to be is now lost to us....and in the losing we have generally lost the data on how slow or fast 1185 and 1186 were too, compared with powders available now. In other words, we cannot accurately place them on today's burning charts without access to some to burn and measure for that purpose.

The primer was NOT the 8G, as I mistakenly recalled yesterday. It was the 8-1/2 G. It was definitely mercuric, as several sources confirm, but one source I have seen says it was both mercuric and corrosive. I doubt very much that it was very strongly corrosive. I can see target shooters being willing to sacrifice brass for accuracy and so using mercuric primers. BUT, I cannot see them using corrosive primers and sacrificing barrel bores and thus losing accuracy fairly soon as well. After all, KleanBore primers had been introduced to the industry 12 years before then, specifically to avoid ruining bores.

Western loaded their match ammo in both 30-06 and .300 H&H with their 180 grain BT match bullets which had a diameter of .3085" to .3090", and Dupont 1185. They used 49.0 grains for the '06, and 60.0 grains for the .300 H&H.

So, IF I was going to try to replicate Comfort's ammo, I would start with IMR 4895..about 40-44 grains of it, and try working my way up toward a goal of 60 grains, using Sierra 180 grain spitzer BTM bullets and the current standard Winchester Large Rifle (NOT Magnum) primers, being very careful to watch for ANY signs of excessive pressure.

Today, IMR 4895 would be considered way too fast for optimum .300 H&H loads, so I'd be double or triple careful. If a person gets past a maximum safe charge, he may get way past it, way quickly.

The bullet diameter of the bullets Western used varied from .3085" to .309" in Comfort's ammo, which they felt was the best available at the time. That's why I'd use Sierras today, because they are petty consistent at about .3085".

It also interests me as to how Western did the seating depth on Comfort's ammo.... Remember, I said it was all hand-loaded by Western. Well, they went to the extent of gauging each loaded round for seating depth. The gauge was a ring-type, with a .3000" inside diameter ring. The seated bullets were measured with the ring around and atop them. The distance from the base of each loaded round to the ring sitting on top the bullet ogive had to measure from 2.760" to 2.770" or that round was rejected.

I have not yet found the actual lab velocity of those rounds, or I would tell you to stop adding ANY more powder when you reach that velocity with IMR4895. I will continue to look for that velocity figure...I have it here somewhere. If/when I find it I will post it for you.

Cheers!!

Alberta:

Excellent post. Thank you very much. This forum came highly recommended and rightly so.

SR:

Your post reminded me of something. When I was in high school many years ago I read a book on Tarawa. In the book they quoted a veteran of Tarawa who lived in Houston where I lived at the time. I looked up the old vet in the white pages and called him. He was very nice and I offered to send him the book if he would send it right back before the due date. He never sent the book back either to me nor the library. I ended up having to pay for it. Small price for lending something to a Marine. The old vet saved me a lot of trouble later on when I was in the military working around Marines doing the same job as me. So, somewhere in that picture is the thief that stole a book from a kid.

Culpeper,
You do realize that he was probably only 17 or 18 when when he was in that 76 hours of hell?

The Marine veteran I knew never wanted to think of the place again. I am sure the Marine you loaned the book to tried to forget it also.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Culpeper,
You do realize that he was probably only 17 or 18 when when he was in that 76 hours of hell?

The Marine veteran I knew never wanted to think of the place again. I am sure the Marine you loaned the book to tried to forget it also.

I would also ask, Culpeper, did you call him again afterward? It is quite possible he was hospitalized, or died, or even that he had been burgled, had a house fire, or something else. If he knew he didn't have the money to replace it, he may have been too embarassed to let you know.

None of us are perfect, so maybe he did just decide to keep the book. But until we know different, I think it is no biggy to assume people are honest and that something beyond his control occured.

Yeah, as I was writing the post I was wondering what the heck am I saying. Even being facetious is no excuse. He was a nice man that talked about his experience to a kid over the phone. I was really excited. This was way way before the Internet and the History Channel. This was about 1974 and I was about 15. The book was new so this was the first he heard about it. I also got confused and didn't realize that is a signature posting. It had nothing to do with the topic. You have to forgive me. In hindsight, it was an honor to speak to a survivor of that campaign. He survived his wounds and went on to survive the rest of the campaigns his division participated in. There are no words to describe that.

Back to Mr. Comfort's .300 H&H ammo by Western cartridge Company. I FOUND the velocity data, and even the "comeups" for different ranges.

But all we need right now is the velocity.

Mind you, this velocity is NOT from a 24" barrel (which may be what your rifle has?)
It is from a test of the same ammo a few years later in a Model 70 "Bull Gun" with a 28" barrel. In that gun it produced an average of 3,030 fps for 20 shots. In a 24" barrel, it would likely have been about 2,900 fps.

That is not near as fast as could have been obtained with slower powders, but in those days there were very few rifle powders which WERE slower...mainly Hi-Vel #2, and IMR 4064. IMR 4320 also existed, but there has always been disagreement as to whether it is slower or faster than 4895. IMR 4350 was just not commonly available until about 5 years later.

Anyway, having looked at the velocities obtained for and by Comfort with Dupont 4895, I would think his loads were hotter than hell!

I would very carefully check loading manuals listing 4895 loads for the .300 H&H to see if ANY of them would list a charge which would give 2,900 fps from a 24" barrel. If not, I wouldn't even attempt it.

Just as a first check, I looked in the old Speer #8 manual, which is notorious for having a bunch of over pressure loads in it, and it lists an absolute maximum of 56 grains 4895 in the .300 H&H, giving 2,860 fps to a 180 gr. bullet...from a 26" barrel...probably equivalent to about 2,810 from a 24" barrel.

I have another 40 or 50 loading manuals (possibly 100), so haven't had time to check them all, and probably won't have it in the near future, but will check the Sierra and IMR manuals to see what they may or may not show, since those are the components I've been discussing with you.

 Cartridge          : .300 H.& H. Mag.
Bullet             : .308, 180, Sierra SPBT 2160
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.600 inch or 91.44 mm
Barrel Length      : 24.0 inch or 609.6 mm
Powder             : IMR 4895

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.862% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-08.6   77    53.00   2646    2798   43563   9595    100.0    1.332
-07.8   78    53.50   2666    2840   44614   9649    100.0    1.317
-06.9   79    54.00   2685    2882   45687   9702    100.0    1.303
-06.0   79    54.50   2705    2925   46783   9755    100.0    1.289
-05.2   80    55.00   2725    2967   47904   9808    100.0    1.275
-04.3   81    55.50   2744    3010   49048   9860    100.0    1.261
-03.4   81    56.00   2763    3052   50219   9912    100.0    1.248
-02.6   82    56.50   2783    3095   51416   9964    100.0    1.235
-01.7   83    57.00   2802    3138   52639  10015    100.0    1.222
-00.9   84    57.50   2821    3181   53890  10066    100.0    1.209  ! Near Maximum !
+00.0   84    58.00   2840    3224   55167  10117    100.0    1.197  ! Near Maximum !
+00.9   85    58.50   2859    3267   56470  10167    100.0    1.184  ! Near Maximum !
+01.7   86    59.00   2878    3310   57796  10217    100.0    1.172  ! Near Maximum !
+02.6   87    59.50   2897    3354   59147  10266    100.0    1.160  ! Near Maximum !
+03.4   87    60.00   2915    3397   60525  10315    100.0    1.149  ! Near Maximum !
+04.3   88    60.50   2934    3441   61932  10364    100.0    1.137  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba     84    58.00   2916    3399   64460   9826    100.0    1.124  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba     84    58.00   2725    2968   45983  10510     99.8    1.293 

A quickload run for what it's worth for you. For the burn rate indicated in theQL data file it appears that around 60 grains is the maximum behind that bullet and at that seating depth but as always this modelling software cannot take in to account any factors involving your rifle's bore, chamber or throat and so should be taken as information rather than load data.

If you give me the water capacity to overflow of your once fired brass I can run a better calculation for you but you would need to get lucky with the burn rate of your powder vs the programs for the data to match closely. If you chronograph the lowest loads and they match up with QL data then it likely to be fairly accurate over the rest of the range but if the figures are very different it will be of less help to you.

Thank you Ghubert. It was nice to see how well Quikload matched with my own guesstimates based solely on loading and shooting experence.

What was even nicer, it got me off my derriere regarding getting a new computer. I have Quikload but have never loaded it onto this computer simply because this computer is now almost 14 years old. It hasn't really got the capacity to handle both a sophisticated CAD program and QL at the same time.

Again, thank you!

MY pleasure, I remain in awe of the experience of gents such as yourself AC, programs have their limitations!

Are you running a 486 or a DEC alpha? Two very different possibilities there for 14 years ago

The last time the 300 H&H was used to win the Wimbledon Match was by Earl Burton from Calif.

He used the 200gr Sierra Matchking over 70gr of H4831. Probably the old, old H4831.

Very cool. My Ruger No. 1 is a medium sporter with a 26" barrel 1:10.

Out of curiosity what was fps and energy specs for the factory match ammo at that time? Not Ben's handload at the factory just the stuff a regular Joe would have purchased in the box.

Ghubert, I don't want to hijack this thread, so this will be brief. I'm afraid I don't know what the motherboard in this computer is, All I know is it was state of the art from Compaq when I bought it, and has less storage or operating memory (either) than today's phones.

I am basically the village idiot when it comes to computers. I use them but other than some memories from the old DOS days I have no clue as to how they work.

quote:

Originally posted by Culpeper:
Very cool. My Ruger No. 1 is a medium sporter with a 26" barrel 1:10.

Out of curiosity what was fps and energy specs for the factory match ammo at that time? Not Ben's handload at the factory just the stuff a regular Joe would have purchased in the box.

I also have that data, but will have to look it up.

Essentially, it was much the same as Comfort's ammo, but was not put together with nearly as much care, used a less consistent primer, bullets which were not as carefully selected through the efforts of QC doyens, and so on.

Comfort's ammo, for instance had all the case walls and necks individually measured and selected for uniform thickness, that sort of thing, which of course the factory run of ammo didn't.

All of Comfort's powder charges were carefully weighed and measured to one granule of powder, while run of the mine factory ammo varied about 1 full grain,sometimes much more. A variation of only .3 grains was considered absolutely outstanding and almost unheard of for machine assembled ammo.

Winchester was by far the best of the common non-match array in most shoorters' eyes those days because they put a lot more money into QC and accuracy testing....and worked with shooters to make things better.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
The last time the 300 H&H was used to win the Wimbledon Match was by Earl Burton from Calif.

He used the 200gr Sierra Matchking over 70gr of H4831. Probably the old, old H4831.

Earl won the Wimbledon Cup at the Nat'ls in either 1960 or 1961...I believe it was in '61, IIRC.

It was definitely the old H-4831. The new IMR 4831 hadn't even been thought of then, and there were many tons of the old stuff still at Hodgdon's in Kansas.

Earl Burton was a friend of mine...built one of my earliest Martini Cadets into a .22 Hornet, using a Stevens 416 .22 RF barrel. He was a M/Sgt in the USAF(R) who lived near Vacaville, CA. I first met him when I had the pleasure of delivering an armed robber I had caught to the California Adult Authority facility at Vacaville for evaluation and determination of term length, prior to his transfer to San Quentin for an extended holiday and reconsideration of his employment options upon release.

Odd thing about that gun....it shot the issue USAF .22 Hornet survival ammo (Ball, not expanding) far more accurately than anything else. He also sold me about 1,000 rounds that appeared to be USAF issue ammo. I never did try to pin him down about its sourcing...

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Ghubert, I don't want to hijack this thread, so this will be brief. I'm afraid I don't know what the motherboard in this computer is, All I know is it was state of the art from Compaq when I bought it, and has less storage or operating memory (either) than today's phones.

I am basically the village idiot when it comes to computers. I use them but other than some memories from the old DOS days I have no clue as to how they work.

AC
You don't need to know so much these days nor need much money.
Go down to a discount place that has a lot of used computers.
A dual processor Pentium 5 might cost $150.
Plug it in and turn it on.
Most things that you connect will be plug and play if not the driver is usually somewhere on the net.

Thanks, AC! A great read!

You're quite welcome, Rusty.

An afterthought...ya know, I think Western found problems with the pressure level of that particular load in some rifles.

They produced identical match ammo, except for the level of QC, for some years afterward. But somewhere in the next two or three years they began producing it exclusively in nickle plated cases. When queried as to why they did that, their reponse was "to provide a slicker surface to assure easy extraction..."

Makes you wonder a bit, doesn't it?

(It also points out the great differences between those days and today. Then society expected people to use their own common sense to protect themselves. Nowadays, even our ammunition is seemingly designed by lawyers.)

This is what I come up with. You're right Ben Custom was using a very hot load that I wouldn't use myself. That is beyond my level of skill in reloading or knowledge on my Ruger No. 1. An example of precaution for me would be not to exceed the line before ! Near Maximum ! That would by the highest for me. I would prefer something reaching 2880 fps without the warnings; all things considered.

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-20.0   61    43.20   2292    2099   27221   7451     98.0    1.691
-18.0   63    44.28   2339    2187   28741   7628     98.5    1.656
-16.0   64    45.36   2386    2275   30339   7795     99.0    1.622
-14.0   66    46.44   2433    2365   32011   7952     99.4    1.589
-12.0   67    47.52   2479    2456   33765   8097     99.7    1.556
-10.0   69    48.60   2524    2547   35604   8230     99.9    1.525
-08.0   70    49.68   2569    2638   37530   8352    100.0    1.491
-06.0   72    50.76   2614    2731   39549   8461    100.0    1.457
-04.0   73    51.84   2658    2823   41667   8567    100.0    1.421
-02.0   75    52.92   2701    2916   43884   8671    100.0    1.388
+00.0   77    54.00   2744    3009   46210   8774    100.0    1.356
+02.0   78    55.08   2786    3103   48650   8876    100.0    1.325
+04.0   80    56.16   2828    3197   51206   8976    100.0    1.296
+06.0   81    57.24   2870    3291   53888   9074    100.0    1.267  ! Near Maximum !
+08.0   83    58.32   2911    3386   56699   9171    100.0    1.239  ! Near Maximum !
+10.0   84    59.40   2951    3481   59628   9266    100.0    1.212  ! Near Maximum !

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba     77    54.00   2825    3189   54195   8499    100.0    1.272  ! Near Maximum !
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba     77    54.00   2622    2747   38626   9056     99.1    1.466  

Oh, the bullet selected for the chart was Sierra 18O Matchking. 26" barrel.

Because that data is calculated data and not fired data, I would start at 48.0 grains and go up in one grain increments to 52.0 grains. That should give you an idea of what your fired cases look like with pressures up to 41,000 p.s.i.

If everything looked good, which it should, then I'd proceed in .5 grain increments MAYBE to as high as an everyday-use maximum of 56.0 grains.

If I wanted higher velocity loads for actual hunting purposes, I'd "shift gears"...that is, then I'd go to a much more appropriate modern powder with a much slower burn rate and lots of available modern "tried & true" fired data.

Any make of 4895 is too fast a burn rate for that big case in my opinion, and will be potentially too dangerous if a mistake is made, to risk fooling around with at the top end of allowable pressures.

As a historical experiment, it is fine to try moderate loads with 4895, but it really isn't appropriate for the higher velocities when much more appropriate and safer powders are everywhere you turn.

I think the lingering memory of Ben Comfort’s win is due to gunwriter Charles Askins. Charles Askins liked to be a contrarian and he constantly railed against the 30-06 providing all sorts of reasons why the 30-06 ought to go away. I think he did it for the attention. Col Askins claimed that no serious target shooter was using the 30-06 as a target round since Ben Comfort won the Wimbleton with his 300 H&H Magnum .

Since 1935 there have been approximately 76 Wimbleton Cup matches, many won with the 30-06 after 1935, many won with other cartridges. I am aware of it being won with the 7 mm Rem magnum, 300 Win Mag, since the 6.5 mm’s I suspect it has been won with the 6.5/284.

And yet, whenever you read a 300 H&H cartridge review in a gun magazine, it is as if time stopped in 1935 with Ben Comfort winning the Wimbleton with a 300 H&H magnum.

I don’t know any gunwriters who are NRA long range shooters. I believe the lack of mention in reloading articles of the other calibers which have won the 1000 yard matches is probably due to the fact that the gunwriting world is in fact a small, virtually incestuous group. If something is mentioned by one, they all know it, and if it is not mentioned, none of them know.

quote:

As a historical experiment, it is fine to try moderate loads with 4895, but it really isn't appropriate for the higher velocities when much more appropriate and safer powders are everywhere you turn.

Yes, that is sound advice. Thank you. When I started this topic I had no clue whatsoever. You have shed a lot of light on then and now. That is for sure. One thing for sure is Ben Comfort had a lot more help than just using factory ammo and what he used was well thought out to achieve a single goal.


What exactly did Ben Comfort do for a living?

I seem to recall he was a lawyer, but that may not even be close to correct.

I'll have to check my files and let you know what I find in a day or two.

AC,

I have a 77-22H these days, but still have a couple boxes of that old AF survival fmj ammunition in the old foil lined boxes somewhere around the house.

In one of Elmer Keiths' articles he claimed
that he loaded Ben Comforts ammo. ??

I hope that was late enough in his life that one could excuse it as senility?

It has been awhile but I have been working on this. I have since built a custom Remington 700 in 300 H&H. It is extremely accurate and I'm working on my accuracy load. I'm using Sierra's 190 MatchKing bullet. I'm also using Quickload software. Sierra suggests their accuracy load is 69.1 grains of H4831 2800 fps. However, in my Remington I am getting 2827 fps with 68 grains of H4831 with Hornady brass already fired in the Remington and then neck sized.

Now, this may sound like a dumb question but can Quickload be that far off?

What I have done in Quickload is change the burn rate for H4831 to match my data from the range.

AC thanks for sharing. I always enjoy the real experiences being retold.

I was awestruck with the .300 H&H as a young boy. My father had made friends with a retired Marine who, as I remember it, had competed at Camp Pendelton. (Russ Palmer if you were curious, rank/unit unknown now) He said things about the grand cartridge that had me believing it would all but load the meat in a cooler. I still watch the old 70's for a .300 but when I've had the money I can't find a decent one. I now see them available quite often, can't afford one. I may have to sell some toys off and satisfy the itch while I can still hunt the hills.

The 300 H&H is an awesome caliber if you can live with trimming cases. it streatches cases with about any load..That is not a problem with me and I have had a pre war mod. 70 Win. 300 H&H since the late 1940s...I shoot a 200 gr. Nosler at 3005 FPS average for 10 shots takeing out the high and low, have chronographed it many times..been shooting this same load with the same old powder since the early 1950s..It is old surplus 4831, the stuff O'Conner used in his fast .270s. it will give less pressure and more velocity in a number of calibers..I still have 40 lbs left from a 150 lb Army keg, but only use it in the 300 and .270....

However looking at some of reloading books this velocity is obtainable with several powders it seems..It is also an awesome long range load with the Sierra HPBT target bullets.

I love the 300 H&H, its a very misunderstood and overlooked caliber, and for those who will take time to shoot it and test it, most will be very surprised and pleased. I see too much repeated suggestions from folks that have not used it and are working off heresay. It will come within 100 FPS of a 300 WBY with about any 300 WBY load, and beat many factory 300 WBY loads and at safe but near maximum pressures.