This may have been covered in the past but why did BFR go with the JRH instead of the Linebaugh?

Landrum

Easier to make brass and a much better bullet selection. .500 vs .511

quote:

Originally posted by Landrum:
This may have been covered in the past but why did BFR go with the JRH instead of the Linebaugh?

Landrum

I do not know, but it is a great cartridge. I have 2 of them 1 on a FA 83 and 1 BFR Performance center gun

As far as I know, They won't do a .510. (I asked about doing a 50-70 or 50-90). I think it's because it would leave the cylinder wall too thin to withstand some stupid overloads?
I talked with a smith that rechambered a BFR cylinder and he said that it cut almost like it was anealed. They are supposed to be made from 17-4, but maybe they are just not heat treated?

Lar, they are definitely heat treated, and their strength I believe has no equals in any other production revolver. Some commercial load development was performed with jwp's BFR in .500 JRH, and I am not at liberty to discuss details, but let's just say that the upper limits (the very upper limits) of the cartridge were found, and revolver is no worse for the wear.

quote:

I am not at liberty to discuss details,

Please do NOT tell us the details, especially if then you would have to kill all who have read the post(both of us)!
Peter.
PS. How do they do this? With a long rope attached to the trigger and the gun hidden behind a concrete wall?
PPS. If the gun was none the worse for wear, what constrains the upper limits of the cartridge?
Both serious questions BTW!

Those who tested worked their way up to the max level with no crazy pressure signs. Upper end? Think .500 Smith and Wesson loads with a 440 grain bullet.......

This this thread is about the BFR and not Freedom Arms, but I will offer Peter an answer about how FA tested prototypes of their Model 83 revolvers,at least at one time. It was probably inexact, but it got the point across...

This was told to me face to face in 1997 by the then (and now deceased) marketing director for FA:

The prototype revolver is always a six-shot. The guys in the shop take turns loading and shooting the prototypes; in other words, the guy whose turn it is to shoot is not the guy that loads the ammunition, and he shoots whatever is loaded. What I was told was that there is clear intent to create any mis-load possible by the handloading public and shoot it in the prototype, effectively "testing for accident conditions". Once all the testing is completed, the revolver is destructively examined, lessons are learned, and the commercial offering in the 83 is a five shot.

(I was also also told that during testing of the ACP cylinder for the 454, the guys at FA got 2000 fps out of a 230-grain hard ball handload. They used Bullseye...)

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

I am not at liberty to discuss details,

Please do NOT tell us the details, especially if then you would have to kill all who have read the post(both of us)!
Peter.
PS. How do they do this? With a long rope attached to the trigger and the gun hidden behind a concrete wall?
PPS. If the gun was none the worse for wear, what constrains the upper limits of the cartridge?
Both serious questions BTW!

Peter, The load was as much powder that could be fit in the case with a bullet seated. The load went 1625 FPS out of the 5" barrell. Since no more powder could be compressed into the case, I would say the upper limits were reached. I didn't ask how the gun was held when it was shot as I didn't see how it mattered.

I seen another reason I like the JRH. Linebaugh dies are SUPER expensive unless on sale.

"I didn't ask how the gun was held when it was shot as I didn't see how it mattered."

It might matter to the guy holding the gun! I mention this as I recollect John Linebaugh (I believe) talking about demonstrating to Ross Siegfried (?) the strength of this guns and that was the method he used. Can someone correct (or support) me here? Now I am still confused. The notion of enough powder that could fit into the case makes no sense to me. Are we taking RL15 or are we talking Bullseye?
In other words some decisions must have been made about the appropriate powder for that bullet and caliber, and then the stress testing with that powder. Make sense?
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
"I didn't ask how the gun was held when it was shot as I didn't see how it mattered."

It might matter to the guy holding the gun! I mention this as I recollect John Linebaugh (I believe) talking about demonstrating to Ross Siegfried (?) the strength of this guns and that was the method he used. Can someone correct (or support) me here? Now I am still confused. The notion of enough powder that could fit into the case makes no sense to me. Are we taking RL15 or are we talking Bullseye?
In other words some decisions must have been made about the appropriate powder for that bullet and caliber, and then the stress testing with that powder. Make sense?
Peter.

The ammo maker used my BFR .500 JRH to develop their line a factory ammo. He tested the loads with as much "SUITABLE" powder as could be loaded into the case and then test fired the gun and found no measurable damage.

I have known and corresponded with John Linebaugh since 1986 and yes, Mr. Linebaugh has tested revolvers to the point of blowing them up by using an excessive load of unsuitable powder for the cartridge. By unsuitable I mean a powder with too fast of a burn rate.

A load of suitable powder in a .500 JRH that will send a 440 grain bullet 1625 FPS out of a 5" barrel is indeed a very high pressure load, when about 1325 FPS plus or minus is where a normal load operates.

Agreed! I would not want to fire a gun that developed 1625fps with s 440 grain bullet. Way too much fun for me.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Agreed! I would not want to fire a gun that developed 1625fps with s 440 grain bullet. Way too much fun for me.
Peter.

I shot some loads out of my .500 JRH that went 1,450 and they were not that pleasant -- particularly with the Micarta grips.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Agreed! I would not want to fire a gun that developed 1625fps with s 440 grain bullet. Way too much fun for me.
Peter.

I shot some loads out of my .500 JRH that went 1,450 and they were not that pleasant -- particularly with the Micarta grips.

Yea, but you used a 6 1/2" barrel

Yes I did. And?

Peter's last post makes me want to alert those who do not know; the front section of most reloading manuals discusses items of interest such as which powders are suitable for which applications.

My advice for those who have not read this portion of the book is to rubberband close the recipe section until adequate study of the front portion of the manual has been completed. This may very well save your life or the life of your firearm.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
Peter's last post makes me want to alert those who do not know; the front section of most reloading manuals discusses items of interest such as which powders are suitable for which applications.

My advice for those who have not read this portion of the book is to rubberband close the recipe section until adequate study of the front portion of the manual has been completed. This may very well save your life or the life of your firearm.

Great advice

And the real reason Magnum Research went the way of the .500 JRH over the .500 Linebaugh........

Drum roll please.

The .500 Linebaugh has a .510 bore and the DOJ says that is a no-no.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
And the real reason Magnum Research went the way of the .500 JRH over the .500 Linebaugh........

Drum roll please.

The .500 Linebaugh has a .510 bore and the DOJ says that is a no-no.

Yes there has been a fear for a decade or so that the .510 bore would be ruled illegal

It's not a .510 bore. It's a .510 groove with a .500 bore.
The law states a bore not over 1/2 inch. It doesn't say bullet diameter.

The mixup here is how the Desert Eagle in 50AE ended up with a .500 bullet and a tapered case, instead of a .510 bullet and straight walled case. They did all of their work with a .510, but the BATF said no when it came time to import them to the US.

http://www.americanrifleman.or...ter-groove-diameter/

Here's the definition, right out of the NRA Firearms Sourcebook. It is “...the minor interior diameter of a barrel that is the diameter of a circle formed by the tops of the lands.” That is the bore diameter, but groove diameter is “...the diameter of a circle circumscribed by the bottom of the grooves...”

Yes, but that is precisely why they didn't build a .500 Linebaugh. I know it lacks logis, but......

That said, the .500 JRH is a great round, I have found!

I'd like to buy a BFR in 500 JRH and get to practicing with it before deer season. The ole 475 needs a companion!

So, one has to order directly from BFR, right? How many frog skins are we talking about?

Landrum

Frog skins or fore skins?!!!
Peter

I'll leave the foreskin topic for others to debate. How much coin?

Landrum

The Performance Center guns are about 1500 and the over the counter ones about 800 if memory serves

There is a whole stack of 50AE BFRs on GunBroker for $725. $25 for shipping, + your FFL's transfer fee($20??).
Then send it back to the factory for a JRH cylinder for $190, plus shipping both ways $50-100ish
=$1060 ish
retail price is $1050. If the JRH is a stock caliber now, maybe you can call and order one for that price?

It only took them 2 weeks to get my JRH built. It would have been quicker, but I went with the octagon barrel.