The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Reloading signs of pressure?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| signs of pressure? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hot Core As Alf says, you always fail to answer the question while tap dancing. Your response to my post to Saeed is most interesting as you were not asked any question. A lot of tap dancing for nothing. It is abundantly clear to every one here that you, tnekkcc and a couple of your ardent followers are of the opinion that if one wants to work up maximum loads (whether "book" maximums" or loads to thier maximum safe potential the ONLY way to do it is to load to case failure (CHE) and then back off. Many of us have learned (some of us have learned the hard way by damaging firearms and/or injuring ourselves) that that is not the smart or safe way to reload. You are certainly welcome to continue not being smart nor safe as it is a free country. Most of us will continue to advise other reloaders of the safe way to reload. That does not necessarily mean that we must stay within the "book" and be "ignorant" or " stupid" as tnekkcc mentions in his "Count how many times I have insulted someone and you will find none" thought process (he can't even be honest with himself so how do we expect anything else but inhonesty with us). It is entirely possible to exceed many "book" load pressures safely (in appropriate actions) using ordinary reloading methods without going to case failure. Tnekkcc and you seem to think that going to case failure (CHE) is the only way to do this. It is not. I regularly excede even level 3 loads for the 45-70 in my Siamese Mauser and have been doing so for years (just one example). I have not had to resort to a case head failure (CHE) to tell me when enough is enough. It is the chronograph and recoil from the 8 1/2 lb rifle that tells me when enough is enough. BTW; I have the blade micrometer and have used CHE and PRE when they were first discussed in the late '60s and early '70s. There were several individuals like Bob Hagel who were working with it before Rick Jamison "went public" with PRE and CHE in the February, 1983 issue of Shooting Times. However since that time the use of both CHE and PRE have been discreditied as unreliable and unsafe. To prove this is simply done by most anyone, not just big name writers. I know you think Denton is dumb and stupid but his test was valid and demonstrated the invalidity of CHE and PRE quite well. I do indeed count myself as "dumb as Denton" as you have said I am. He obviously is really a pretty intelligent guy so I appreciate your comment comparing me to him. You and your few followers may use CHE and PRE to your hearts content. However everytime you advise some new reloader to use it I will call BS and point out that going to case failure is not the safe, wise or smart thing to do. Tnekkcc feels he must go to case failure with every cartridge he loads for and then back off. That way he thinks maximises the cartridge's potential. I'll bet I can get to the same maximised potential he gets to without going to case failure. I'll be a lot safer getting ther and won't damage my rifles either. I'll also bet that some of his "maximised" loads are still in the proof load area pressure wise. He may find those "proof" loads safe while hunting or shooting but small things like a hot day can put such loads over the edge. Tnekkcc is unwise and his methods of load developement are unsafe. One last note; You really need to reread these threads. You actually have it backwards with; " Strange that it is ALWAYS OK for them to go on personal attacks when it comes to me, but when I return it, some folks do seem to get upset. But, just like you, I do "prefer" to remain civil." It is you, Hot Core, and tnekkcc who always come out with personal attacks when others are trying to keep the discussion civil. Larry Gibson | |||
|
| Administrator |
Well, I just went through this whole thread, looking for all the posts Ken Oehler made, and read them all. I did not see a single instance where he has mentioned you in any way at all! So my previous commentm still stands, you have no business insulting anyone who has not gotten into an argument with you. | |||
|
| one of us |
My post that larry was speaking about really wasn't directed to him. Simply stating a position as I see it and that is why I enjoy this site - no thought police to tell me or anyone else what we can post to and what we can't. Actually, I quit responding to alf a long time ago in a thread about Bullets and how they perform. Obviously that really needs to be the way I handle anyone who starts off with the character attacks. No folks, what is abundently clear is that for whatever reason, larry has misread, chosen not to understand, or is simply not able to understand regular old English. CHE does not equate to Case Failure. In fact, if used properly, it totally prevents Case Failure - unlike chronographs, HSGSs, reading Primers, reading Bolt Lift, etc. And wrong again! And still a totally wrong comment. If anyone is reading this that lives near larry, I'd encourage you to call him up and explain that Case Failure and CHE are not the same. Obviously shifted to "humor". The "humor" really is quite funny.  denton pretty intelligent??? Anyone care to tell us "Who" was the fellow that gave the Board The World's Most Ignorant Reloading Suggestion??? That thread speaks volumes about actual Reloading knowledge. Actually, I can't even imagine larry following that massive portion of "denton's wisdom", but.... Sure nice to recieve "larry's permission". But for those of you reading along, his permission isn't needed. Apparently larry is hung in a rut. We all know the time-proven CHE/PRE Methods work better than anything else ever conceived at giving first-hand Pressure Indications. Granted though, CHE/PRE is not much for those desiring the "oohing and aawing"!  Amazing how I get an entirely different idea of what tnekkcc is doing with his Failure Load Analysis. But, then there is a HUGE difference - I read his posts and understand what he is actually doing. This gets deeply into the comprehension problem. Does anyone have a Link to where tnekkcc "recommends" that anyone use a Load "Designed for Case Failure Analysis" as a Hunting, Target or Plinking Load??? As I sit here looking at that, perhaps "English" is not larry's primary language. Everyone already knows me as "Amiable" old Hot Core.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
You may be right about Ken not insulting me, but have you noticed how many insults I received from others?
My theory about the uncountable insults directed at Hot Core and Tnekkcc posts is that being wrong is painful. These are good posters, turned bad by pain. | |||
|
| Administrator |
So if someone insults you, you take it out on someone else? Does not say much for whoever is doing it, though! Now, if we discuss the SUBJECT at hand, without name calling, I am sure everyone might learn something. And no matter how much more we THINK we know, we should keep an open mind, we just might get to scratch our heads more often. | |||
|
| one of us |
I wonder how many participants in this thread have been hit in the face by gas from a failed case? I have had a gas in the face from a shot shell that split around the rim. I have no interest in any loads that might come close to causing a case head failure in a center fire rifle. | |||
|
One of Us |
What did it do to you? We had a guy get his thumb hurt from a shotgun barrel that suddenly blew a small penhole in it just in front of the barrel. Love shooting precision and long range. Big bores too! Recent college grad, started a company called MK Machining where I'm developing a bullpup rifle chassis system.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have received just a bit of gas and debris when a primer cracked on korean surplus in a garand. enough for me! maybe I'm not advanced enough. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Alright Hot Core, since you don't know when to quit I shall respond to the ignorance of your comparison;
Thank you Hot Core. | |||
|
| One of Us |
...which were in response to yours. You've been insulting since page 2. ----------------------------------------------- "Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder." | |||
|
| one of us |
In a lot of these arguements, people seem to exaggerate, take out of context, whatever. Now, I know nothing about pressure or engineering, and so far have not used a pressure test device, or pre or che as such. I take the above quote to mean that those of us who don't use a strain gauge, or pre/che are dangerous fools. Well as I understand pre che the case is NOT taken to destruction. As all neck sizers know the case streatches GRADUALLY, without excess pressure. As the pressure increases, this streaching happens more quickly. I think H.C.'s position is to monitor this streach BEFORE it gets to the stage of primers falling out, bolts sticking, etc. I THOUGHT we all agreed that using correct components and all else equal, a small increase of powder near/over a few manuals max listed load will show SOMETHING before the case distructs or the gun blows up. Primers are said to be suspect on reading pressure, but I have found a correlation with my loads up to flattened/createred, loose primer pockets after a FEW reloads, AND inserting the just fired case back in the chamber to check case expansion. All this happens to me before hard bolt lift. On only a few cases over 50 years have I seen marks on the case head. An immediate back-off, and said cases were reused no problem. So far I haven't blown up anything from excess pressure except a revolver with bulges in the barrel from blowing out bullit centres. So, no chrono,no press.Lab. no pre/che, no problem, no worries. But, I have seen a factory rifle fireing factory ammo blow the primer out every shot. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have felt the stuff bounce off my face from a 17M2 rimfire case head blowing in a converted 10/22. Good thing I was wearing safety glasses. That is why I like the 98 Mauser and the Ruger #1. If the case fails, no gas comes at me, and they are very good about prying the case out if the rim is still there. I have had the primer fall out in 19 Badger, .223, .243, 25acp, .243Win, 257 Roberts AI, 270, 32acp, 7.62x25mm, .308, 30-06, 7.62x39mm, 8x57mm,.380, 9x19mm, 9x23mm, 357 Sig, 40sw, 10mm, and 45acp. I have never had the primer fall out becuase the case head is a stronger design, but lots of stuck cases: 6mmBR, 32S&WLong, 32-20, 7.62x54R, 38special, 357 mag, 45 Colt, and 45/70. Even when the case wall starts to separate from the case head in 45/70, there is still no gas leak. There are some cartridges that never seem to have trouble: .222, 6.5x55, 7x57mm, 7mm Rem mag, 32sw, 30-30, 303Sav, 300 Win Mag, 7.5 Swiss, 303Brit, 38 S&W, 44 mag, 45Colt, and 12 ga. Probably becuase I have babied them along, but their time is coming.  Of course no gas came at me, it being a 98 Mauser. In this series of three shots all of the same load with increasing Copper fouling [not detonation, silly], the last shot could not be pried out of the chamber with the 1938 Turkish Mauser extractor. The rim pulled off. I had to get it out with a cleaning rod. When the case head comes all the way off, I use a bronze cleaning brush that is reluctant to reverse direction when inside the case, to pound it out. I have had the case head completely disappear into tiny pieces that left the scene in 19 Badger, 7.62x25mm, and 9x19mm, 38 special, 357 mag, and 7.62x39mm. But this is typically the guns fault for poor case support or weak gun and my fault for way too much powder. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The above just brings us back to realise that generally Reloading Manuals caution us not to exceed their recommneded maximums. A good one in this regard is the Lyman manual. Lyman is one of the manuals that show pressure levels as well, and whilst these pressure levels are not aboslute, they are still good guides. Because nothing is absolute, for that very reason it is prudent to have a margin of safety. Quickload shows you a "RED" area and it is their attempt to caution the reloader, albeit not perfect in many cases. Here in SA we only have Somchem's booklet on SA powders. Their advice is exactly what you say above and it is there for safety reasons. However there are some maverick private loads that float around and they typically come from those that believe another 50 or 100 fps will bring a 'so-much-needed' benefit to you, despite pushing pressure levels up to the border of the case's ability. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Now how prudent can this be? In my books you are a super maverick. Warrior | |||
|
| Administrator |
Larry, Thank you for the advice. Most of the things you have mentioned do not apply to us, as we will be conducting the tests in our indoor shooting range, and we have the loading lab right next to it. I have already started reading the manual, and hopefully I will be familiar with it by the time we run the tests. | |||
|
| one of us |
Many years ago when I was shooting pre-64 M70s(there were no post-64s then), I've had it happen due to Case Splits along the Case Walls. And Pierced Primers. That "Holy Grail" rifle design funnels the gas right to the shooters face. Have had complete Case Head Separations in M99s, but no gas in the face. Have had some Pierced Primers in the M7s and M700s when using Pistol Primers in Reduced Loads that simply got too HOT(temperature). But, no gas in the face. ----- Haven't had any Case Failures in a long time. Some of it may be due to much better Cases being made today. And some may be due to me getting the Ammonia Based Bore Cleaners completely out of the Chambers. Some of those Case Splits "may" have been due to Ammonia creating Case Embrittlement. | |||
|
| One of Us |
JAL Actually we are in agreement except that most knowledgeable reloaders now agree (from being able to actually measure the pressure) that when the case head shows any sign of expansion on the first firing (that's the proper way to make CHE test measurement) you have already exceded acceptable pressures. Now that brings us to the question of what is acceptable. Some of us have learned (me the hard way and you through judicious reloading) that pushing max pressure can be hazardous. Some like Hot Core and Tnekkcc in particular obviously think it is ok to push pressures to the max and bck off. If the case head has expanded to a measureable amount it is generally considered to have "failed" to contain the pressure. The snip you quoted was accually referancing tnekkcc and his self stated method of loading them up until the primer blows then back off. That is, in fact, loading them to case failure. Larry Gibson | |||
|
| One of Us |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saeed: Saeed "Most of the things you have mentioned do not apply to us, as we will be conducting the tests in our indoor shooting range, and we have the loading lab right next to it." Saeed, I am insanely envious! How about we start a seperate thread on the M43 when you are ready to test so we can exchange information? Yesterday I ran tests on 3 different lots of M80 (WRA69, LC67 and LC90), LC88 M118, Winchester 150 PP, Remington 150 CL and and Federal 150 PS through 2 .308 rifles. One rifle with a 12" twist and one with a 14" twist. I also ran some M2, M72 and some Federal 150 and 180 gr factory loads through 2 30-06 rifles. There were some interesting results worth discussion. Larry Gibson | |||
|
One of Us |
Larry Gison What are you doing son? Sounds like you are trying to do the impossible...trying to communicate with Hot Sh** is impossible as he is the suppository of all knowledge relating to reloading and shooting, as I have said many times. To try to do so is an exercise in flustration. The only fun part of talking to him or trying to communicate with him is brushing up on your trash talking. The sad part of the deal is the guy probably does have some good experience to share but becomes the true owner of his opinions and feels the need to defend them to his death. It must be an ego thing and who knows the source of such a problem. Perhaps some profession time with a counselor would be helpful. I don't think he truly understands how he comes across with the majority of board members here. Any attempt to tell him his manner is coarse, abupt, and combative is met with more trash talking from him telling you how stupid you are in return. My solution to his sh** is to simply ignore him and his band of followers. Since doing that this board is again a great place to come for others experiences and knowledge. I've found some great gems here and appreciate the input from others. Thanks to all the members posting here and to Saeed for making this possible. | |||
|
| One of Us |
TEANCUM I appreciate the "son", especially at my age. However in regards to HC, I have mentioned as you have that he probably has some valuable input. His manner, actually a lack of manners, gets in his way. My last post to him was just to ring his chimes and demonstrate (once again) that he shouldn't shoot his mouth off when he doesn't know what he is talking about. I've about had it with him anyway as he sounds too much like the old "Gun Kid" who used to post with the same style on other forums. I also wish to thank Saeed and the others here who want to and know how to have an intelligent discusion of reloading. Larry Gibson | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Alf Assuming Dr. Oehler sent you the comparison test? Did you notice the end results of the test with one pressure barrel having 2 strain guages, 2 conformal transducers, a gas casemouth transducer and a PCUP all on the same barel and measuring the same fired cartridge? I won't state the results here but I'll quote Dr. Oehler from my conversation with him last week when I asked how the M43 strain guage pressures compared to the other more sophisticated ways of measuring pressure. He stated; "strikingly similar". The test does in fact demonstrate that. I certainly agree about what is an inch, etc. and it is difficult to get the "absolute truth" (whatever that is) especially as it pertains to some sort of "calibration" as you mention. This is also why it is necessary to differentiate as the the method of measurement. Shooters must also understand that every shot of the same load fired will not have the same pressure. This is why an average of numerous shots is used. As I discussed with Hot Core we actually are measuring second hand information. As Dr. Oehler points out no system is without some problems and can be called an absolute standard. It is the equivelent measurement we look at. With the M43 I've found the PSIs to be the equivelent of what they should be in two different 30-06 rifles and two different .308 rifles. The pressures are not the same in each rifle but they are where they should be comparing them to industry standard. As an example; the '06 load I've previously mentioned was tested again yesterday with two loads. The same one that gave high pressure and one with the charge reduced 1.5 gr. I shot 5 shots of each. The high pressure load showed an average peak pressure of 66,400 psi(m43) with an ES of 6,000 psi(m43). The reduced load showed an average 62,300 psi(m43) with an ES of 3,200 psi(m43). Four of the higher pressure loads gave sticky bolt opening with shiney rub mark on the case. CHE on the once fired cases only showed .0001" expansion on 2 of the cases. On the reduced load there was no sign of sticky bolt lift or any shiney marks on the cartridge face. There also was no CHE measureable. While the reduced load seems like a good load I would not want to shoot it in 80-90 degree weather as yesterday was 46 degrees during the test. So what is the absolute truth with those loads? Alf, your guess is as good as mine but CHE did not show me anything. The M43 showed me I was averaging 66,400 psi(m43) and I had obvious other signs of high pressure. I believe I'll stick with the M43, or as Hot Core says at the end of his CHE/PRE article; "If however a reloader has access to a chronograph, he should use it as "one more source" of information concerning his loads. Always use ALL means available that provide relative information concerning your Loads and record that information for future reference" That is pretty good advise that Hot Core gives. Larry Gibson | |||
|
One of Us |
Hot Core, for what it is worth, most times I find you have a heap of valuable experience and knowledge. The same for tnekkcc - and Alf - and - Larry Gibson and ........  Nobody on this thread is an idiot! Just normal, good folks with different perspectives and back ground experiences!Regards 303Guy | |||
|
| One of Us |
It seems like there are a few posters on these boards that have "gun fights" with everyonelse over experiences and opinions. As an employer of some 15 people I can tell you if there are some disagreements amoung our staff we look into it and see how to resolve the issue. If we find that one employee is constatly in disagreements with other employees and clients then we visit with that employee and "explain things" to them. After a few of these "explanation" meetings if the empoyee persists in this combative nature we tell them that their career maximization will need to occur at another local. Techinical ability is wonderful but the ability to work with people in furthering the objectives of the organization is more important. If I had a choice between someone who was technically strong with an adverse personality and another individual that had average techincal skills but a very likeable personality and approach to clients and co workers there is no question we would hire the latter. Technical skills can be taught but personality disorders are another monster. Maybe some who post here have reached the apex of their presence here and all would be better served should they seek further optimization elsewhere on different boards. Just a thought! | |||
|
| one of us |
Teancum, can't see the revelance of your workplace to an "open" board. We do have moderators that shut discussions down sometimes. Thankfully not often. So, who you going to give the pink slip to?? | |||
|
| One of Us |
I was trying to show how pissing contests and "gun fights" can become so large and occupy so much time and space that others of us who are trying to learn more about reloading get tired/fed up with the crap and find their/our time here not well spent. I probably didn't do a very good job of that. I really like to hear of others experiences but when jumped by assholes I will defend myself and I can talk trash with the best. Now the question. Do others are this board give a rip about the petty "Yes you did", "no I didn't" threads??? The interesting observation is there are a few who post generously here are always in a pissing contest with somebody. Good debate and honest differences provide different insights and perhaps a new perspective on subjects. But the pissing contests seem a waste of time. JMHO. | |||
|
| one of us |
Yeah, I know. But quite often while obstinate people are defending their position some interesting facts/theorys/whatever are tossed about. I don't see what is so hard to skip most of it. I mean, most people have learnt to ignore me.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
You're not on my ignore list. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, I just thought it good to show what I said on the pressure issue and what you claim I said ... "CIP maximum is absolute and cannot be exceeded." This is wrong, I never said that, but you are so fond of twisting and putting another spin on things. I stated before that the case is the weakest link, and as such, one can exceed CIP pressure in certain cartridges, but it is not recommended or advisable as a matter of prudence. It is about having a margin of safety to allow for things that can happen/change and drive the pressure up to the point of just not being able to fire a second shot (i.e. a stuck case), not even to burst the case, that could put your life in danger. This condition happens well before a blow-up. So, it is stupid in my view to ignore P-max values, as if they do not exist. The same apply for max loads in reloading mannuals. I also did point out the soft Mauser actions that abound in certain calibers, and that for this reason it is not good to push those actions over P-max. I also said that CIP had their reasons for publishing max pressure levels, and I consider them as a better REDLINE than those individuals that advocate much higher REDLINES that want to milk their cartridges for the last drop of velocity, which is typical of some of your max load recommendations on your website, and in particular the max load with the 230 gr HV bullet at 2,800 fps. Just waiting for scanned pictures to put up the test. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Warrior, I'll second you on that! I had worked up a max load for my hornet and accidently loaded one into a maveric case that I must have picked up at the range by accident. I did notice one case had a higher powder level in it and I recharged that one. Well, it was a different brand and the primer flattened somewhat!  I have no idea whether or not I have a safety margin but that case did not stretch, which means something in a hornet. I am quite certain I exceeded SAAMI max that time. Which is why I check all my fired cases.  Regards 303Guy | |||
|
One of Us |
 Sic Semper Tyrannis | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, I mentioned that there were differences between the SAAMI and CIP system, and you you made out that it was not true ... here is a quote for you: "Because the indicated pressure from crushers is known to be off, SAAMI many decades ago began referring to the indicated pressure from their tests as "Copper Units of Pressure," a clumsy name commonly shortened to "CUP." For low pressure cartridges such as shotshells, lead is used for the crusher, and SAAMI refers to these numbers as "LUP." Strictly speaking, such units should only be used to identify crusher readings taken in accordance with SAAMI procedures. Both SAAMI and the CIP have detailed specifications for the arrangement and dimensions of the crusher. Because these two systems are not identical, the two crusher standards can not always agree. Further, as explained above, CIP crusher ratings are generally a bit higher than SAAMI's due to differences in definitions. Also, SAAMI is generally more conservative with older military rounds, such as the 8mm Mauser. With SAAMI's arrangement, the piston is over the brass case, and the case will rupture somewhere below 20 ksi. The resulting sudden jump in pressure under the piston magnifies problems with piston inertia, and this makes the reading more sensitive to parameters such as burning rate, case strength, and true peak pressure. The CIP arrangement requires the piston case be drilled at the sensor location, and one benefit is that crusher and piezo ratios are much more consistent from cartridge to cartridge, allowing them to reasonably use a conversion formula (above)." Source .... http://kwk.us/pressures.html The difference in the margin of safety needed between the two institutions iro of some cartridges (as pointed out) is yet another difference. Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hey Warrior, Why are you answering questions that Gerard did not ask? He has not been on this thread for more than six weeks. You like starting arguments hey.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Interesting facts, Warrior.  Regards 303Guy | |||
|
| One of Us |
303Guy, Be careful of what Warrior says. His facts are not always waht they seem to be. Above he denies saying that CIP maximum must not be exceeded but a quick check shows that he has said it many times. I for one will take everything he posts with several bags of salt.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
303 Guy, Be careful of what Rat Motor says, he is a rabble rouser. With all that salt, he is the "salt of the earth" !!! Warrior | |||
|
| One of Us |
There is spark and there is fuel but the cylinders are not firing in the correct order.  | |||
|
One of Us |
This thread has degenerated from a good discussion to just cheap shots. Let this thread die. You can battle another day over ideas. Let it go. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Gerard, 1. Results of pressure testing - 230 gr HV bullet: Powder: S335 Load: 59.8 gr Case: PMP Primer: Magnum CCI250 AOL = 85.0 mm Barrel: 24 inch test barrel from Lab Velocity: 2,723 fps Pressure: 7% over P-max This was a serious hot load and we could still not achieve your recommended safe load of 2,800 fps. This was a compressed load, as can be seen in the accompanying photo despite us seating the bullet out to 85.0 mm and the use of a Magnum primer. When the bullet was seated one could hear the crushing of the propellant for several millimeters. Little wonder then that such a compressed load with a fast powder, and a magnum primer that is not need for this volume of extruded powder, equates to such undue high pressure. Clearly all intended to achieve maximum velocity with this bullet with little concern for the pressure curve. 2. Picture of case & compressed load that yielded 2,723 fps:  The primers were flattened but the full effect could not really be seen, as the pressure was bled off by the testing method, where a hole is drilled into case for the pressure to escape. We used stronger CCI primers instead of the softer Federal primers. The danger is that non suspecting and uninformed novices do not know this. Also, PMP cases and primers are thicker and stronger than most other brands, and as such, they have the potential to mask high-pressure loads better than other thinner and softer brands. 3. Intensity of various pimers: Here is a relative ranking of commonly available primers by flame heat, from highest to lowest: a) Fed Match GM215M = 6.12 b) Federal 215 LRM = 5.69 c) CCI 250 LRM = 5.66 --------------> (32.2% more than Standard CCI primer) d) Winchester WLRM = 5.45 e) Remington 9 1/2 LRM = 5.09 f) Winchester WLR = 4.8 g) Remington 9 1/2 LR = 4.75 h) Fed Match GM210M = 4.64 i) Federal 210 LR = 4.62 j) CCI BR2 = 4.37 k) CCI 200 LR = 4.28 --------------> l) KVB 7 LR Russian = 4.27 We can clearly see that the CCI Large Rifle primer is much cooler and runs at a lower pressure than the various Magnum primers. 4. Max recommended safe load: Gerard, the question now arises how did you arrive at this safe max load of 2,800 fps? Did you experiment in various rifles, or did you have it pressure tested by a Lab, or did you go with an estimate? You consistently refused to answer this question. Regardless of how you arrived at it, we now know it to be silly, as there is no margin of safety for the various reasons mentioned previously. It remains now up to you to amend your loading data based on this study or to dick your head into the sand. Unnecessary hot-loads are not just about one-shot blow ups, but rather about the border line loads that cause case failure slowly. 5. Equitable comparisons: Gerard I like the availability of a lighter well made bullet such as yours in the caliber, as it is more than adequate to shoot Eland; one does not really need a heavier bullet as the emphasis for me is on bullet expansion and keeping intact petals as far as possible. However, the motivation of your 230 gr HV bullet should not be based on a velocity of 2,800 fps (marketing hype), as that does not give us equitable comparisons with other bullet weights loaded to lower pressure levels that are well inside the CIP max pressure. Your MINIMUM load yielded a velocity of 2,634 fps which was almost at MAXIMUM pressure (98% of P-max). There is no compelling reason to exceed that velocity/pressure curve in my opinion. We certainly can, but we should not in terms of having a margin of safety. So, there is a difference between "can" and "should not", Gerard. Incidentally, we tested a 286 gr bullet at 2,263 fps @ 87% of CIP P-max, and would estimate a velocity of around 2,387 fps to be at 98% of CIP P-max, leaving a velocity differential of 247 fps [2,634 - 2,387] only between the two bullets, using our local powders as recommended. These figures should be used to contrast trajectory differences, if that is the main intention, and that is to say if we know the true BC of the HV bullet by now after it has been removed lately from the GSC website.. Despite this cloud of smoke and skew comparison of how the 230 gr HV bullet outperforms a 286 gr bullet, both bullets are more than adequate even at reduced velocities for their intended purpose of shooting large game. Warrior | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
