In the wake of all of the AI discussion that took place not long ago...I am working on loads for a 338-06AI that I put together. My concern is that I get what I can out of this cartridge with out pushing the pressure limits.

So the question is..how much case head expansion is too much...? And is there a way to estimate pressure based on the amount of expansion...?

It is clear from what measuring and checking I have done with the chronograph that when I get up to .0005" expansion..the velocity appears out of line... But on the other hand, loads that may show .0003-.0004" of expansion are within the proper velocity range(per manual data).

So what limit do you put on case head expansion..?

Zeeriverrat1

http://www.shootingsoftware.com/tech.htm

Read the one on PRE, CHE, RIP.

The repeatability of the PRE and CHE methods produces about 10X the random error of the the better systems available, which are themselves imperfect enough.

If you are at book MV, it's a good bet that you are also at max pressure. As Dutch once very nicely put it, "Speed is a pressure sign."

quote:

If you are at book MV, it's a good bet that you are also at max pressure. As Dutch once very nicely put it, "Speed is a pressure sign."

The only problem is whose book?With some cartridges the manuals vary by up to 200fps with the same cartridge and bullet.

Amen to that guys! I just bought my first chronograph because of a funny reloading problem and found the trouble right away when I got the velocity check. Top velocity does = pressure!!
LLS

Denton...Thanks for the link..really an informative read....

I guess I will pretty much forget about the mike and go on about my business...maybe a little more conservatively...

Z

What case head expansion does tell you is that
you are reaching the yeild point of the brass.
That should make a person start to think.
Good luck!

quote:

With some cartridges the manuals vary by up to 200fps with the same cartridge and bullet.

That's a problem alright.

Hey Zeeriverrat1, You have been mis-lead by one poster who doesn't know Pressure from Beans. denton has never been able to figure it out and obviously never will. Any links he provided are nothing but totally false trash based on no experience base with the PRE and CHE methods. If you read enough of his foolishness, you will understand.

Here is the only thing denton has ever posted I totally agree with:

quote:

Originally posted by denton:
I am completely unburdened by any actual knowledge...

---

The second totally wrong statement was

quote:

Originally posted by sierra2:
Top velocity does = pressure!!...

Velocity is a result of Pressure but in no way at all "equals" Pressure.
---

quote:

Originally posted by zeeriverrat1:
So the question is..how much case head expansion is too much...?

It depends on a number of things, but as you previously determined with your specific rifle and those specific components, 0.0003"-0.0004" CHE is apparently the limit.

Since you have done some of the CHE measurements, you should realize by now that they are very repeatable which should prove denton's illogical foolishness is wrong to you (as usual).

quote:

And is there a way to estimate pressure based on the amount of expansion...?

Since you are relatively new to using the method, it is best to just understand that CHE measures the "result" of Pressure, but can not be interpreted to mean they are equivalent to any specific Pressure number.

quote:

It is clear from what measuring and checking I have done with the chronograph that when I get up to .0005" expansion..the velocity appears out of line... But on the other hand, loads that may show .0003-.0004" of expansion are within the proper velocity range(per manual data).

Well, there you go. You proved to yourself that CHE does indeed work.

Don't be mislead by people who really have no clue about just how well CHE works.

quote:

So what limit do you put on case head expansion..?...

Generally the same 0.0003"-0.0005" range you mentioned. But, it varies slightly depending on the specific rifle and components being used. The hardness of the Casehead can vary a bit from Lot to Lot and that will influence when you need to STOP.

And the cases will work-harden as you re-use them which can skew the results if they are used too many times.
---

1. Always use every Pressure Detection method available to you as you Develop a new Load. When "any one" of them indicates the Pressure is too high, simply back off.

2. A non calibrated HSGS = Reloader's Pyrite (aka Fool's Gold)

3. denton's advice is full of beans.

You can take those three "to the Bank".

quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

So what limit do you put on case head expansion..?...

Generally the same 0.0003"-0.0005" range you mentioned.

I'd like to point out that this advise will leave you generally with all your fingers.

Which is great, except when it doesn't....... JMO, Dutch.

Case head expansion is dependent on, among other things, the toughness of the brass, the dimensions of your chamber, etc., etc. as well as pressures developed by your load.

I am one of those who believes that the case head measurement school of thought is a poor approach to determining allowable pressures in modern, strong rifles. A much better method, if you have no actual pressure measuring equipment, is the "case life" method. This essentially states that if you have a strong rifle with correct headspace, you can load your ammo so that you get about ten loadings (or more) from a lot of brass, and such loads are safe.

The first indication you have of excessive pressures is generally primer pockets that soon get too big (sometimes on the first firing) to hold a new primer. This will happen at or before the pressure level where you start getting sticky bolt opening, smeared headstamps, ejector hole marks on the case head, etc. Since primers themselves can give false pressure signs, (such as flattening, extrusion of the firing pin indentation, etc.), I do not consider primer appearance to be a reliable indicator of excessive pressures. And in tests of the head-expansion measurement system, some ballistics laboratories have recorded greater case head expansion from rounds that indicated less measured pressure than other rounds which had higher actual pressures.

As we all know, it is the brass of the cartridge case which is the weak link in our modern rifle system. As noted above, when pressure reaches the yield point of the brass in the lot of cases we are using, it is time to back off-and when primer pockets start getting a little loose, we know we have reached that pressure level.

(I am reminded of the days long ago when Bob Hagel wrote of being able to get higher velocities from his .300 Winchester Magnum than he could from his .300 Weatherby because Winchester brass was tougher than the Weatherby cases being made in those days by Norma. Norma brass back then was considerably softer than Winchester's...

Well, guys this is getting interesting...and maybe I will not give up on the mike just yet...afterall I have been relying on what ever data is available..working up my loads and watching for pressure signs...for years with numerous calibers..and the only reason I have any concerns at this point is that I do not have a good source of data for the 338-06AI that was developed in a lab...

Using the published data for the standard 338-06 in both the Nosler and Hornady manuals my velocities are higher than I expected, and I am really trying to come up with a safe max load in my rifle.. The Win. brass I am using has been fired 5 times now and is still holding primers, and I have had a sticky bolt only on one occasion early on(using data not in the manaul)..no other visible pressure signs...that is why I decided to experiment a little with CHE... Probably in the end I will try to duplicate the published load velocities and allow my velocity to go a tad higher..

Thanks for all the input..

Z

It's an easy situation to sort out. Just look at which posts are supported with data, or physical principles, or credible references, and which are supported by name calling and insults.

Brass is nowhere near consistent enough in strength to be a precise indicator of pressure.

Percent of commercial labs that are aware of PRE and CHE, and could use it as their primary standard: 100

Percent who actually do: 0.

quote:

Originally posted by denton:
...Brass is nowhere near consistent enough in strength to be a precise indicator of pressure.

Percent of commercial labs that are aware of PRE and CHE, and could use it as their primary standard: 100

Percent who actually do: 0.

Hey Z, You are welcome.

If you were using a Standard cartridge, I'd recommend Pressure Ring Expansion(PRE). It will also work on Wildcats, but not without some experience.

By the way, if you want credible evidence that denton is wrong again, just check your Speer and Nosler Reloading Manuals. They still use good old CHE and PRE.

But, what do they know?!?!!?

quote:

They still use good old CHE and PRE.

But not as their primary standard. Nice little twist, Hot Core. Yet another half truth.

Ken Waters made very modest claims for PRE. He said that strain gauges and copper crushers actually measured pressure, while PRE and CHE were only adequate for relative judgments, and not entitled to be called real readings.

Commercial labs use better measurement systems, and average 10 rounds to reduce random error, and they use the newer, better measurement systems.

The typical pressure signs don't start until 70 KPSI, and primers don't fall out until about 80 KPSI. Guns don't usually blow up under 100 KPSI. So people use PRE and CHE, and their guns don't blow up, and they take that as proof that the system works.

And to say that one expansion dimension covers all cartridges totally ignores the fact that some case heads are fatter than others, and therefore stronger.

Both PRE and CHE have serious problems. It's not that they absolutely don't work. It's that they are not reliable, and you have practically no way of detecting when they have mislead you.

quote:

Originally posted by denton:

quote:

They still use good old CHE and PRE.

But not as their primary standard.

Hey Z, Not only do they use them as a normal part of their own Load Development Processes, but they think so well of them that they have the Detailed Methods included in their Manuals so ANYONE can use them.

I know of only "one" person (well, maybe two) who still find it impossible to follow the Instructions. Speaks volumes for them.

quote:

By the way, if you want credible evidence that denton is wrong again, just check your Speer and Nosler Reloading Manuals. They still use good old CHE and PRE.

Hotcore, I hate to point this out but pg 53 of my Speer #13 state both transducer (piezo) and crusher equipment is used in developing their data. Neither has anything to do with case head measurment. I didn`t bother to check Nosler so I can`t say for sure what they`re useing now.

Speer does mention CHE as a method and states it is and old less precise way to "ASSESS" pressure. They note one should remember it doesn`t give absolute pressure and only gives a relative indication of pressure, results can vary depending on rifle and cases being used. (pg 53-54)

PRE and CHE are so well thought of that they are completely missing from the SAAMI standard. Wonder why that is?

They are so cheap, and easy to apply... why aren't they part of the standard procedures adopted by all US commercial manufacturers and all US pressure measuring labs? You'd think that if all their expensive equipment could be replaced with a $20 micrometer, they'd do it.

quote:

I know of only "one" person (well, maybe two) who still find it impossible to follow the Instructions. Speaks volumes for them.

With the fixture I set up, my PRE and CHE measurements tested to an Effective Resolution of 50 millionths. You're saying that yours are better, and that this isn't adequate?

quote:

Originally posted by Ol` Joe:
...Hotcore, I hate to point this out but pg 53 of my Speer #13 state both transducer (piezo) and crusher equipment is used in developing their data. Neither has anything to do with case head measurment. I didn`t bother to check Nosler so I can`t say for sure what they`re useing now.

Speer does mention CHE as a method and states it is and old less precise way to "ASSESS" pressure. They note one should remember it doesn`t give absolute pressure and only gives a relative indication of pressure, results can vary depending on rifle and cases being used. (pg 53-54)

No need to hate it at all Joe, I agree that is what it says. No where does it say they don't use CHE.

No where in any of my posts did I say it gave exact Pressure. But I did say, A non-calibrated HSGS = Reloaders Pyrite (aka Fool's Gold).

As for Nosler, Joe Cullison(of Nosler) joined the Board awhile back and mentioned they still use PRE as part of the Standard Development Process. If you would like, I can find the Link and include it. In fact, in that same thread, denton continues to show how wrong he is - as usual. I'll try to remember to include it tonight for you.

Oh yes, Joe Cullison also mentions "in his own words" that a non-calibrated HSGS is not as useful as some of you seem to think it is.

We did a lot of things in the past trying to assess the pressure of our loads, rate the velocity, trajectory, ect. The manufactures did the same, not always with reliable result. I`m reminded of a artical I read many years ago on the old British rifle industry - been MANY years my mind is a little rusty on the exact rifles and ammo used but I think it was military - and their proof houses. The author claimed that the Brits used old cordite loaded ammo heated to 140* as proof loads in their rifles.
The loads obviously gave them no idea what PSI their rifles were safe at, or even knew what psi they were proofing at, just that they shouldn`t blow in the mid east dessert or Africa.
Of course they didn`t seem to care if the ammo was at 20% over pressure or 50%. They simply wanted pressures in a general range. If the gun survived fine. If not hand over the next and we`ll try again..........

quote:

As for Nosler, Joe Cullison(of Nosler) joined the Board awhile back and mentioned they still use PRE as part of the Standard Development Process.

Sure. They still use the old process as secondary. It's not their primary system, and you know that.

Percent of commercial ammunition manufacturers and reloading publishers that know about PRE and CHE, and could use it as their primary system: 100

Percent that actually do: 0

Number of times PRE and CHE are mentioned in the SAAMI industry standard for making pressure measurements: 0

Factor by which the random error in the PRE and CHE systems exceeds that of SAAMI accepted systems: 4-12

PRE and CHE are not useless, but they are not very good, either. If you want a cheap, easy, not very good measurement, PRE and CHE fit your needs very well.

quote:

Originally posted by denton:
If you want a cheap, easy, not very good measurement, PRE and CHE fit your needs very well.

If you only wanted a cheap, easy, not very good "measurement", then your shoulder im-pression would also do ;-).

Excellent articles, Denton: thank you !

Carcano

If PRE and CHE were any kind of a standard practice based on science one would find their descriptions (how they are performed and the values of accepted measurements) to be consistent by the various sources. That is not the case, there is virtually no consistency in the descriptions of PRE and CHE methods among the various sources.

quote:

totally false trash based on no experience base with the PRE and CHE methods

That would certainly account for the photograph of my test setup, and publication of the PRE and CHE data it produced. I think you're really onto something Hot Core. Keep investigating that, will you?

I've loaded wildcats and factory for years. I've always used CHE as one of the factors. Comparing the expansion of several to strain guage reading. .0005 is somewhere in the 70-75,000 range. Much above that and the primer is coming to see you. If you keep pressure in the standard area, 60-63000 you will see little if any CHE expansion. In addition to CHE I Chrono each load. For almost any powder you will get a linear increase in velocity as you increase powder. Once that changes you are too high. Again the 75,000 range. For what it's worth for the lack of any other data I set .0005 CHE as the max and then back down a little for my real usable max.

After blowing a few primers in my early days I have long since decided that if I really need that extra 10FPS I'll switch to a bigger case. In the scheme of things a few grains of powder is cheap. What good does it do me to be able brag about the high velocities I'm getting by stressing everything if I can see to shoot.

In most hunting 100-300FPS doesn't mean a thing for the amount of drop or killing ability.

I remember an article about pressure with a 7mmMag .He used .0005" as the limit then sent loads to a laboratory, 75,000 psi !

Denton, have you ever compared your stain-gauge system directly with the piezo-electric transducer system. Maybe someone else has? It seems easy enough - apply a strain gauge to the pressure barrel fitted for a simultaneous piezo-electric transducer system. If the data is there, please share or provide publication. I'd love to see the data plotted. Thanks.

Also, I've noticed that when I begin to get pressure signs (i.e., extraction marks, lose primer pockets, blown primers, etc.) I'm almost always at the same velocities (i.e., with a given gun, bullet, powder charge). Thus, the velocities - which are PSI dependent - seem to be fairly consistent with evidence of brass case flow and suggest the noise you present in your article may be exaggerated. If velocity correlates nicely, why shouldn't PSI correlate nicely? In your experiment, how did your velocities correlate with CHE?

El Dequello, you state..."A much better method, if you have no actual pressure measuring equipment, is the "case life" method. This essentially states that if you have a strong rifle with correct headspace, you can load your ammo so that you get about ten loadings (or more) from a lot of brass, and such loads are safe."

Why 10 reloadings? Why not 5 or 3 or 2 or whatever? What's magic about 10?

Happy/safe shooting/hunting, AIU

I'll throw some gasoline on this fire. I use PRE. My max load is when my average measurement is the same as factory ammo.

A handloader who knows enough to ask about PRE or CHE, is doing pretty good IMHO.

I used to work in a gunshop. Many of the guys buying compontnets had no idea what they were doing. Some were ignorant and some were stubborn and ignorant. I remember one guy who wanted some red dot for 12 ga short mag loads. I tried to explain his folly but he got mad at me. Most of the customers just picked a load out of a book.

Another fool bought a pound bullseye for his "45". Yeah, an original 1860 Army percussion revolver. He seemed surprized when it disintigrated.

So, I say again a guy who is trying to understand such ideas, is doing pretty well and will likely be a safe handloader. PRE and CHE are not perfect ways to determine if a load is safe. It is however a start. It certainly does not replace a laboratory or strain gauge. If your measurments reflect factory loads, your velocity is close to factory, the cases last, and the rifle operates properly, I think it is a good bet you have a safe load.

Varmint Al had this to say about estimating PSI. I hope he doesn't mind me posting this, but it's the best practical advice I've seen. Any thoughts?

Some Words About Pressure

There are numerous variables that would lead to an overpressure condition. One of the main considerations is the hardness of the cartridge brass in the case head region. Full Hard brass has a yield stress of about 63 KSI and the pressure would have to exceed that value to cause yielding. Many of the modern calibers typically operate at 65 KSI, and very slight yielding occurs in the case head. Extractor dimpling and case head expansion are two of the results.

Primer flattening can occur at moderate pressures if the head space is a bit on the large side. At ignition the primer backs out and then is reinserted when the high pressure occurs. The primer cups are not nearly as hard as the case head and this process will flatten the primers.

To get loose primers, you have to be well above the yield stress of the brass. That would be considerably above say 63 KSI. Like I say, too many variables.

Here are some words of wisdom on pressure signs:

1. Primer cratering and flattening are not the best indicators of pressure. If the cartridge/chamber combination have a bit of headspace, this can make a primer look flatter. Some primers are harder than others. A weak firing pin spring or a poor fit of pin tip and hole can make a primer crater.
2. About the same time you feel the bolt handle a little harder to open, you will encounter marks on the brass, corresponding to ejector ports. This indicates for practical purposes you are a little too hot.
3. Brass starts to flow about 65,000 psi. Measuring expansion at the web is a more scientific way of doing it. Stop and back up the load a bit when the actual web of the extractor groove expands.
4. Loose primer pockets are quite a bit too much pressure. Don't confuse the area of the back of the case that expands with the thick web.
5. Mebbe not the best way, but it's served me well through many thousands of rounds and dozens of chamberings. I load at the range. Take 5 pieces of brass to load over and over. Starting at a safe level slowly work up [with the same 5 cases] until primer pockets loosen, STOP. Throw this brass away. Now with 5 new pieces, drop a grain or so and load/fire 5 times. If pockets are still sound you're working right at the top-end MAX for that brass, that powder, that bullet, that temp, etc. I know of no instance where this wouldn't be safe.
6. Primer pocket loosening is the best way that I know of to catch case-head expansion - with a hand seating tool one can often feel expansion before one can measure with a caliper. Plus case heads are not round.
7. I'm not a proponent of shooting max, but one must KNOW where it is, and some guns shoot best there.
8. Primer flattening has never been much good for me. Due to various machining differences some brands of action will experience brass failure prior to reaching this point.
9. Sticky bolt at BOTTOM of throw will be coupled with shiny deformed or scraped spots somewhere on case-head - too hot.
10. Sticky bolt at TOP of throw is another matter, could be due to tapered factory case, lack of lube on primary extraction ramp, or in the case of a custom action without ejector could be a sign of REALLY high pressure. No gun I've heard of will run this hot without very short primer pocket life.
11. This is word-for-word out of the Sinclair Precision Reloading & Shooting Handbook, a $13.00 investment and a lot of great info. Signs of excessive pressure:

1) Primers cratering severely or flowing back around the firing pin hole
2) Blown out primers
3) Gas leakage around primer, pitting on bolt face
4) Enlarged primer pocket
5) Case head expansion
6) Shortened case life
7) Ejector or extractor marks clearly visible on the case head
8) New cases are hard to extract after firing

Good Hunting from Al Harral (Varmint Al)
Al@VarmintAl.com
Varmint Al's Hunting Page
http://www.varmintal.com/ahunt.htm

quote:

Denton, have you ever compared your stain-gauge system directly with the piezo-electric transducer system. Maybe someone else has? It seems easy enough - apply a strain gauge to the pressure barrel fitted for a simultaneous piezo-electric transducer system. If the data is there, please share or provide publication. I'd love to see the data plotted. Thanks.

Me too. I've thought I about had the necessary equipment lined up a couple of times, but no cigar.

We did run strain gage data vs. QuickLoad, and the correlation was excellent.

I have run the correlation of PRE, CHE, CUP, piezo, and strain gage data against themselves. Those results are the basis of my statements about the relative precision of those methods.

Denton, please address the second question. Thanks.

"Also, I've noticed that when I begin to get pressure signs (i.e., extraction marks, lose primer pockets, blown primers, etc.) I'm almost always at the same velocities (i.e., with a given gun, bullet, powder charge). Thus, the velocities - which are PSI dependent - seem to be fairly consistent with evidence of brass case flow and suggest the noise you present in your article may be exaggerated. If velocity correlates nicely, why shouldn't PSI correlate nicely? In your experiment, how did your velocities correlate with CHE? I assume you were using the same batch of brass."

Hey Ol` Joe, Have you ever seen ANY of the Bullet or Powder Manuals "recommend" (the pretty much worthless) HSGS?!?!?!? Don't you find it interesting that both CHE and PRE are highly recommended by the Experts and no mention is made of wasting any money on a HSGS?

quote:

Originally posted by Scota4570:
...I used to work in a gunshop. Many of the guys buying compontnets had no idea what they were doing. Some were ignorant and some were stubborn and ignorant. I remember one guy who wanted some red dot for 12 ga short mag loads. I tried to explain his folly but he got mad at me. Most of the customers just picked a load out of a book.

Another fool bought a pound bullseye for his "45". Yeah, an original 1860 Army percussion revolver. He seemed surprized when it disintigrated...

Hey Scota, I'll guess his name was denton!
---

Ah yes, the Thread that just keeps blowing denton out of the water. This is when Joe Cullison joined AR. Also where a Non-Calibrated HSGS is (as usual) proved to be worthless:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/997104392

And for your viewing pleasure "The World’s Most Ignorant Reloading Suggestion" by guess who - denton!:

https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2511043/m/322108091

You guys REALLY need to view the last Link. It will put denton's reloading knowledge(? ) in the proper perspective.

I see no experts highly recommending CHE or PRE. I see some experts stating that it is OK for a backup, and that it does contain some useful information. Which experts, exactly, did you mean, Hot Core?

Did you perhaps mean Ken Waters? I could post his actual words for you again, if you like. They contradict you, as you well know. He says that strain gages are real measurement systems, and that PRE is not. I'm more generous than he is--I actually call PRE a measurement system, and put numbers to its precision.

All you seem to have is wild exaggerations, unfounded assertions, name calling, and general childish behavior. Time to grow up, Hot Core. Third grade was a long time ago.

quote:

Percent of commercial ammunition manufacturers and reloading publishers that know about PRE and CHE, and could use it as their primary system: 100

Percent that actually do: 0

Number of times PRE and CHE are mentioned in the SAAMI industry standard for making pressure measurements: 0

Factor by which the random error in the PRE and CHE systems exceeds that of SAAMI accepted systems: 4-12

Don't you just love it when denton continues to quote sources that "blow him completely out of the water"?

quote:

Originally posted by denton:
...Did you perhaps mean Ken Waters? I could post his actual words for you again, if you like. They contradict you, as you well know. He says that strain gages are real measurement systems, and that PRE is not. ...

Nope, Ken Waters NEVER said that at all. denton is (as usual) skewing Mr. Waters words to try and say what denton wants them to say, but that ole dog don't hunt.

It has been awhile since I saw denton be foolish enough to bring this up, so my memory might be a bit fuzzy about the wording, but Mr Waters usually says just what I said that PRE provides a "Comparative" Pressure Indication Method "relative" to factory ammo.

And I think he said something about the HSGSs, Pizeo and Crusher Devices being too expensive for use outside a Lab. And needing trained people to interpret them so the information they do provide is in anyway useful, or something like that. Mr Waters would only sit back and laugh at anyone trying to gain "useful data" from a non-calibrated HSGS which is = Reloaders Pyrite (aka Fools Gold).

quote:

Nope, Ken Waters NEVER said that at all. denton is (as usual) skewing Mr. Waters words to try and say what denton wants them to say, but that ole dog don't hunt.

Well, OK, here's what Ken actually said. He says that strain gages are real measurement systems, and PRE isn't. Publication date, page, and title of the article are included, for your reading pleasure:

quote:

Ken Waters, “Developing Pet Loadsâ€, Sep. 1982 Handloader magazine, p6a ff.

“Controlling pressure is therefore a major concern for handloaders, but to control it, we must first have some means of judging the height of its peak. Ballistics laboratories utilize special pressure barrels and copper or lead crusher gauges—or, alternatively, electronic transducer strain gauges—to measure chamber pressure. Such systems, however, require both costly equipment and skilled technicians, placing them beyond the reach of individual handloaders.

[Then, speaking of his system, PRE:]

Two terms that I use are somewhat different from those in wider use concerning the same concepts—developing rather than working-up loads, since it is frequently necessary to work down from early loads and unsafe to work up; and judging rather than reading pressures since any such method is far too inexact to qualify for any term such as reading that implies a greater precision than is actually the case.

Now of course, no such system of judging pressures can reveal the actual pressure in pounds per square inch [My note: As piezo and strain gage can.] or copper units of pressure [My note: As a copper crusher system can]. It must be understood that this is only a means of determining comparative pressures, with nothing more to be expected of it. [My note: Contrasting PRE with the other systems, which he clearly thought were better, but too expensive for common use. And he was right. At the time, they were too expensive for most people to use.]

Now as to this:

quote:

And I think he said something about the HSGSs, Pizeo and Crusher Devices being too expensive for use outside a Lab.

What was true about cost in 1982 is far from being true today. Anybody that is willing to give up the price of a medium quality rifle scope can have a system. Why do you cling to this statement from Ken, and contradict the rest?

You have over and over again stated that PRE and CHE are "completely repeatable and reliable", that they are "calibrated", and that they "are the best system known". Ken directly contradicts all of those statements. For $6, you can get a copy of his article. I recommend it.

The bump you felt passing your teeth was your kneecap.

How are you going to respond this time? Unsubstantiated assertions? Name calling? The old spin and twist? Gross exaggerations? Half truths? Diverting attention? Which will it be?

Denton, why are you avoiding my second question? If you were able to correlate CHE with strain gauge PSI, you should have the corresponding velocity data. How did CHE correlate with velocity? When I start getting extracter marks, loose primer pimer pockets, or blown primers my velocities are always excessive. These pressure signs should correlate with CHE as well. Regards, AIU

Hot Core,

Long time since I've posted. Good to see the pressure measurement wars are still going! Ha!

You got me all fired up to go read where Nosler showed Denton the error of his ways.......to no avail. I'd post my thoughts......but I don't think it would change either of our minds.

Must admit, I enjoy the heck out of your posts (when pressure measurement isn't discussed ). I can't remember what the post was about now....but I remember you giving me some info in a post last spring that was right on the money.

Denton, I enjoy your articles. Appreciate the time you've spent researching and posting.

zeeriverrat1, do you have reloading data for the 338-06? If so, measure the case capacity increase between a sized but not fireformed 338-06 case and a fireformed 338-06AI case. Velocity goes up at about 1/4 the rate of case capacity so if you have a 4% increase, just add 1% to the velocity data for the standard 338-06 velocities and you will have fairly reliable velocity data to go by. Not perfect but more reliable than traditional pressure signs.

quote:

How did CHE correlate with velocity?

IIRC, I did not take velocity data for these tests.

However, the correlation between velocity and strain gage measured peak pressure is very, very high. So, in effect, you can substitute velocity on the horizontal axes of the PRE and CHE graphs in the article, and the appearance of the graphs will change very little.

quote:

When I start getting extracter marks, loose primer pimer pockets, or blown primers my velocities are always excessive.

I would call that completely normal. If you are over book MV, you are almost certainly over maximum pressure, too. Serious pressure signs start in the low 70's, and, in some casings, blown primers start around 80. The trick is figuring out when you're running 58-60.

quote:

Originally posted by HogWild:
Hot Core, Long time since I've posted. Good to see the pressure measurement wars are still going! Ha!

Hey HogWild, Surely you didn't really think denton would ever be able to comprehend the reality of the situation.

quote:

You got me all fired up to go read where Nosler showed Denton the error of his ways.......to no avail. I'd post my thoughts......but I don't think it would change either of our minds.

Obviously you "skipped-over" or "mis-read" the portion where Mr. Cullison basically says a non-calibrated HSGS isn't worth much. My only real disagreement with that is the non-calibrated HSGS is really totally worthless and at best mis-leading.

But, you need to dive right in with your thoughts. I'm ALWAYS open to new information and I feel sure it will end up blowing denton out of the water in the end - as usual.

quote:

Must admit, I enjoy the heck out of your posts (when pressure measurement isn't discussed ). I can't remember what the post was about now....but I remember you giving me some info in a post last spring that was right on the money.

Your welcome. By the way, since you seem to have a good memory, you probably remember that I have no problem at all being in disagreement with someone and can respect their (wrong )opinion as long as it remains civil. It just seems denton never grew up enough to be able to handle being wrong. I would guess he has lots and LOTS of experience at being TOTALLY WRONG.

Be sure to read "The World's Most Ignorant Reloading Suggestion". I can't remember if you responded to it in the thread and I would be interested in your take on it. Have you ever heard of anything MORE STUPID?!?!?

quote:

Denton, I enjoy your articles. Appreciate the time you've spent researching and posting.

Oh..., now I get it, this is obviously a joke!

quote:

Ken Waters, “Developing Pet Loadsâ€, Sep. 1982 Handloader magazine, p6a ff.

“Controlling pressure is therefore a major concern for handloaders, but to control it, we must first have some means of judging the height of its peak. Ballistics laboratories utilize special pressure barrels and copper or lead crusher gauges—or, alternatively, electronic transducer strain gauges—to measure chamber pressure. Such systems, however, require both costly equipment and skilled technicians, placing them beyond the reach of individual handloaders.

[Then, speaking of his system, PRE:]

Two terms that I use are somewhat different from those in wider use concerning the same concepts—developing rather than working-up loads, since it is frequently necessary to work down from early loads and unsafe to work up; and judging rather than reading pressures since any such method is far too inexact to qualify for any term such as reading that implies a greater precision than is actually the case.

Now of course, no such system of judging pressures can reveal the actual pressure in pounds per square inch [My note: As piezo and strain gage can.] or copper units of pressure [My note: As a copper crusher system can]. It must be understood that this is only a means of determining comparative pressures, with nothing more to be expected of it. [My note: Contrasting PRE with the other systems, which he clearly thought were better, but too expensive for common use. And he was right. At the time, they were too expensive for most people to use.]

Well, it looks like I was, how can I say this nicely, ...RIGHT AGAIN!!!

It doesn't look quite the same as I remembered it, but that is either my memory or more than likely denton hosing the info. You can see denton had to leave out something that "blew him out of the water", because there is nothing in "Mr. Water's words" that actually says PRE or CHE.

Someone previously said that denton was bad about "skewing the meaning to fit his agenda" and that person was right on the nose. Pitiful!