Wasn't Douglas or E.R.Shaw set up to do rebarreling of 1895's to 405? Seems I read an article about this a few months ago in one of the monthly rags. - Dan

Dan,
I know you are aware that there is more to it than simply rebarreling the action. Do you recall what this firm(s) were charging for rebarrel in said article?

Scott

Well I just ran this combo on Quickload and it suggests that 50 grs of Rl-7 with the 400gr Woodleigh will hit about 2155fps and generate about 76KPSI. That sounds a little high to me for a lever gun! I've never seen one push a 400 gr Pill that fast. My 405 win is an original M1895 and the best it's ever done is about 2015. -Rob

You know the load wasn't 76000 psi , or that 1895 is already toast !!

I've heard that Quickload can be pretty far off with the straight walled cases ..........

Anyone interested in buying a modern Winchester 95 in .405, send me a PM. These are left-over Tongass National Forest Centennial editions, and are engraved and gold inlaid. Price is around $1700. I have no financial interest in the rifles and will gain no benefit from the sale -- I just know the gun dealer who has them and will give you his location and phone number privately.

In my experience, the results obtained using Quick load have NEVER been more than 10 % off in Anything including lots of straight walled cases. I also have a strain guage and an accurate chronograph and more often than not the results obtained using quick load are amazingly close to the observed results. Basically, I don't know how ScottS got this velocity with Rl-7 at anywhere near a safe pressure level. After all he didn't post the actual amount of Rl-7 he was using nor did he give his barrel length. I'm simply saying that something doesn't add up here.-Rob

So you fellows are saying that Scott is lying , and prefer to put your faith in the computer simulation ?



Yet , another poster is getting 2050 fps with Varget . My guess is that powder would be too slow to be optimum . Even Rob states he gets 2000+ out of an original '95 . He doesn't say what powder . Is it really too much to believe a new '95 (with far superior steel to the original) and optimum powder might not get around 100 fps more ?



I have to presume that Scott is telling the truth about his velocity , just like I would with any of you'all posting .



So I have to think that your Quickload numbers are way off in this case . Even if 76000 wouldn't blow the action , the '95 dam sure wouldn't extract rounds at that kind of +P .

SD,

Pal, I am trying to be a buddy here. You stipulate that we "would rather put our faith in a computer model" than internet load data? hell yes.





Every variable change makes a huge difference. Perhaps you didn't read that Rob and I both user quickload AND safe reloading practice. Rob has a pressure gauge to back this up. In fact, partner, quickload is used by Cartidges of the World to guesstimate several of the rounds that they don't have load data for.



woodleigh 400 gr, assuming 25" barrel (24 outside action, .75 inside)

2050, with varget "only" runs 49.600psi... this is assumed to be about 42k CUP.



One can't get enough varget into the case, without sever compression, to hit 2150... but we'll look at that, too



at a large compressed load of varget (we'll assume it works) varget "only" make 60,200 psi (DANGEROUS LOAD)



in fact with RL7 (no other changes but powder and charge)

at 2050, it makes 58,000 pso (nearly the same as varget 100 FPS faster)



and for the next "trick" it picks up 18,000 psi... which I call HORSEAPPLES, for RL7 and 2150+ fps. That last 100 FPS is the killer, as it is in ANY, and I repeat ANY round.



Sorry if you believe him, but I suspect, and have a model that proves, that the load he's using probably aint safe, and that there is NO WAY IN HELL i would load a 405, in that gun, take it to the range and expose others to an exploding rifle and unsafe loads.



jeffe

Why is 60200 psi a DANGEROUS load ? Browning has chambered the '95 to .270 among others , which is commonly loaded to well over 60000 psi .

If I were doing it , I would probably pick a powder between Varget and RL 7 . Seems your Quickload would agree a powder slightly faster than Varget would reach 2100 at around 60000 psi .

However , I don't buy that the increase of 100 fps from 58000 psi in your example will reult in over 30 % more pressure . I think Quikload is losing it on that calculation .

Again , giving Scott the benefit of the doubt on his speed , there is no way the '95 will consistently extract rounds loaded to 76000 . My view is that sort of lever gun will give you sticky or non-existant extraction long before you reach gun-blowing levels .

Seems like many of the experts and computer simulators told Kev there was no way his 50/110 was going to get 2100-2200 fps , and they were wrong on that count also...........

Don't bet your life on "signs" of overpressure like sticky extraction and flattened primers" depending on the guns headspace, chamber dimensions and type of lock-up, these are unfortunately utterly and completely undependable signs of overpressure. Frankly unless Browning made some major design changes in the M1985 that I'm not aware of and using modern steels has nothing to do with a designs ability to handle pressure, I will fall way back on the fact that even when M1985's were chambered in 30-06, that you were well advised to use reduced loads in them. I'd do the same with a modern one in .270. This is not a design noted for it's ability to handle high pressure is it? I'm a rangemaster here and I have a bucket of parts from blown up guns produced by people who THINK that they know how to reload and wanted to push the envelope.I've seen a Mauser recently in 22-250 AI shoot a load that probably produced over 90KPSI and extract beautifully. The case had a extractor groove extruded into it, but no other overpressure sign.That guy was real lucky and was going to fire another round, but deceided to ask my opinion first. He noticed the extruded case, but it didn't dawn on him that it was an overpressure sign as he didn't get any sticky extraction! No Kaboom on the first shot, but how many do you think it would take?I suspect that if ScottS continues to shoot that load, in a short time his M1985 will cease to function or will Blow-up. Computer simulations like Quickload are a lot better than you think and even then it pays to work up slowly and carefully. Any time that little bell goes off in your head that says something might just be too good to be true, IT USUALLY IS! Unless ScottS has about a 33-34 inch barrel on his gun, I'm thinking something smells wrong! We are not accusing him of lying, it just doesn't make sense. Your free to believe whatever you want!-Rob

Here's some data on the .411 Hawk




325 gr. North Fork, Semi-Spitzer, H4895, CCI 200 primer, in 25" barrel.

63 gr. 2430 fps, Model 43 psi 57,000, Standard deviation of 4, Accuate load.

3715 foot pound of energy at 100 yards

350 gr. Swift A Frame, IMR 4064, CCI 200 primer, in 26 inch barrel. 58 gr. 2128 fps
59 gr. Average fps 2295 Standard Deviation 33.22
61 gr. Average fps 2366 Standard Deviation 16.49


400 gr. Hawk Round Nose, Reloader 15

57 gr. 2159 fps, Model 43 psi 58,700



Note the 2159 fps with the 400 gr slugs......pressure tested @58700 psi with an Oehler M-43


Feel free to correct me if I am wrong , but I think the .405 powder capacity would be very close to the Hawk cartridge..............

SD, If memory serves those 411 Hawk loads were achieved with a 27 inch barrel. That might bridge the last 100 fps in itself.

Rob, can you run the numbers with the listed RL-15 load? This powder is significantly slower than RL-7 and I would more likely expect to work, if anything does.

But Rob is dead on with his comments about extraction. That is a useful indicator when you get it, but not getting it tells you absolutely nothing about the pressure. My brother told me about a test in which someone increased charges until they blew up some double rifles and the cases extracted beautifully until the end.

My version of quickload doesn't have Hawk .411 bullets. With .411,400 gr Woodleigh softpoints, a 27 inch barrel, and 54 grs of Rl-15 you would have a 108% compressed load, 58KPSI and a MV of 2149 FPS. I could believe that, as my top load for my std grade M1895 win .405 is 56 grs of Rl-15 for 2015fps in a 24 inch std barrel! Don't the Browning M1985's have the std 24 inch barrels on them? I would not feed my rifle a steady diet of these loads under any circumstances! I believe any M1895 varient should not be loaded to more than 55KPSI period! An extra 3 inches of muzzel is usually worth 75-90 fps maybe slightly more depending on the pressure curve. By the way, my Jeffery 450/400 double Rifle requires 71 grs of Rl-15, 4 grs of dacron with a 400 gr Woodleigh SP for 2150 fps and less than 40 KPSI. I called Browning today about this, and their comment was that it sounds like ScottS is shooting their proof loads and he should stop before he is injured!-Rob

Does Browning include a warning with their 06 and .270 1895 s : NOT FOR USE WITH FACTORY LOADS ??





I really doubt that .





I can believe that compared to ORIGINAL .405 factory loads , these sort of loads would be at proof levels . So would 06 and .270 factory loads . If the '95 is not even capable of handling 06 factory loads , I have a hard time believing Browning would even consider such a chambering . However , people have been using a steady diet of these sort of loads in new '95 s with the Hawk cartridges , at least if you believe the stuff Scovill has been writing in Rifle magazine .







The real world Oehler tested (as opposed to computer simulated) data for the .411 specifies a 25 and a 26 inch barrel . With the large bore and comparatively small powder capacity , I doubt you'd see more than 50 fps difference for two inches of barrel ........



Something is wrong with the Quickload calculation for 108% compression with the simulated load Rob posted . Even a Whelen case will easily hold 60 gr. of RL 15 without severe compression , let alone the straight sided blown out Hawk case.........

sdgunslinger,

Don't get too excited this site is full of 'experts'. You may find this interesting. I used the 411 Hawk loads, as published on Z-Hat's website, in the 405 Win and achieved ballistic results which were much lower.

Load data from Z-Hat's website:

Quote:

---

TEST LOADS FOR .411 HAWK
Data collected with neck sized brass. Bauska, 26" Barrel (unlapped)

TEST LOADS FOR .411 HAWK H4895 300 gr. Hawk RN, H4895, CCI 200 primer.

Fire Forming Loads
58 gr. Average fps 2341 Standard Deviation 37.00
59 gr. Average fps 2373 Standard Deviation 38.27
60 gr. Average fps 2463 Standard Deviation 22.73
60.5 gr. Average fps 2409 Standard Deviation 19.97
61 gr. Average fps 2420 Standard Deviation 15.36
61.5 gr. Average fps 2458 Standard Deviation 19.97
62 gr. Average fps 2478 Standard Deviation 11.78

---

My results in the 405 Win (300gr pill):
60gr of 4895 obtained an average muzzle velocity of 2210 fps with an extreme spread of 26 fps.

62gr of 4895 obtained an average muzzle velocity of 2290 fps with an extreme spread of 63 fps. Groups were large, to say the least.

These results were surprising to me as the case volumes between the 411 Hawk and the 405 Winchester are practically identical. Maybe it is just that extra 2" of barrel they have ( but I don't think so )

Robgunbuilder,
You aren't really shooting a 400 gr bullet over 56 gr of powder are you? That is really scary to me, as I could not get that much of a Reloder series powder into my case underneath a 400 grain pill, and still get it into the rifle. What is your COL and what is your limiting factor? Heck 56 gr of Rel 7 is near max with a 300 gr pill, and a compressed load too.

To everyone, my intention with this thread was to point out the possibilities. Start out low and work you way up slowly 0.5 grains at a time! Above all else BE SAFE!!!

Scott

BTT.

Robgunbuilder, I would appreciate an answer to my question.

Thanks,
Scott

ScottS/Axel/Judy- Don't try the same old crap again please. We are on to you again!-Rob

Robgunbuilder,

On to me me again???? I do not understand. Please answer my two questions, if you can. Be careful though Robert, it may be a trick question.

Of course you could just ignore my posts, and I would then, naturally, ignore yours.

Scott