quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:
michael

please remember that when you were there last time you were suggesting completly different bullets which i would still give you sht about as i still have a hard time with some of the designs in elderly doubles.
BUT sam's design is a completly different kettle of fish, the two band design is the one that can turn this around as it is the one with the least bearing surface of all the bullet designs which might have lead to lower pressure and faster bullet speed with the same load and weight.
this design is actually ground breaking, as compared to all the different microbands where the body still are being engraved, those bullets still wont have a chance near any of my damascus barrels, but sams will. coming from me that means a lot of confidence and i have no doubt that they will perform just as they should in my guns.

how about: new bullet design for doubles !

best

peter

Peter

Yes, I think that is much better than Mine. However, to be honest with you, I rather stay away from attempting to make a suggestion that suggests these are safe for anything. Makes sense they are, numbers don't lie, but I am not in that business and not trying to sell anything. Do I think it is the kick ass, ground breaking, double rifle bullet? Yes I do, in all aspects. However, does not matter what I think, what matters is what the user thinks. As for double or not, that's not my end of things--my end starts at the nose part, and straight line penetration. This bullet actually has both.

I am not so sure that if I had one of those extremely OLD and VERY expensive rifles, I would even worry about shooting it at all???? If so, I think a nice SOFT LEAD bullet, undersized some, and about 800 fps might be safe!

Modern rifles, you know that's up to the owner. If I had one, I would damn sure shoot them, and would never consider anything else, and as we plainly see the 2 bands are less everything than the old standby Woodleighs, even the soft points. The Barnes I think is out too, unless that wide band in the rear can be shaved down. Hornady not much different than the WOodleigh. And the BBW #13 is superior in performance than any of them, including the Barnes. I don't know, you know all those guys are shooting the woodleighs, and they are the worst we tested, and they have not busted guns or that I have heard of, then I suppose the #13s could be declared very very safe, but not by me, I don't need to be responsible for that, I am not in that business, and not going to be, not looking to be and don't want to be. Just trying to help out Sam and get something for all the double guys too, so that the performance they see in the field is far more than anything they have ever experienced, or could experience with many things that are currently available, and be safe in the process if they deem it so.

What really intrigues me is the pressure/velocity. The BBW#13 Copper (I told you copper the other day remember) is almost 35% less pressure than most of the other loads, and more velocity than any of them other than the Barnes and the Barnes running 46000 vs 30000 for the #13! That is incredible amount of difference, and totally unexpected. We all "thought" that the strain on the barrel would be less, common sense tells us that, but the pressure being so dramatically less, and giving up nothing in performance, that alone is a major accomplishment.

But we are going downstairs with this, someone might get some good out of it?

I will get bashed, but what the hell.

M

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I will get bashed, but what the hell.

M

no mate this time you actually have an idea about, what we are talkin about.
some of us numbnuts actually enjoy the pure history of talking a vintage gun back to the hunting fields, and doing what it was buildt to do.
i am in the planning fase of talking a couple of black powder express double rifles back to africa in 2011 and do a short flick on the adventure just because i can, but it will proberly still be sir sam's bullet design that will be sitting at the end of the powder charge

value is only in the eye of the owner, and owning a piece of history like these guns and not using them is the biggest sin in my book, it would be like a client talked me into making him a best gun and when i delivered it telling me that it will never go hunting, and i will neve get to see pictures of the client with a big grin besides a big bull ele with one of my creations in hand, to me that would be a bit sad.

so lets go to the double rifle section, there might be growls, but you are coming with a different understanding and a new concept now

best

peter

P.S i promise i wont run you off the forum this time

Peter

OK then, if you PROMISE not to run my ass off, I will go! HEH HEH!!!!



And yes, I promise to be nice, or I will do my best!

Let me think on it for a few minutes, and if I have nothing pressing, then I will take it down there very shortly, today, in the next hour!

So all you better come down and fetch me out from under the pile when they get me on the ground!!!!!

OK boys, I am headed downstairs! It's 4:30 pm here when I start, you know it may take a bit for me to get the stuff posted there. But it's coming!.

Doc M

Probably going to need a real doc shortly! HEH.

Go man Go!

Ok I have to apologize to everyone. I was in a hurry this morning as I had to leave for an appointment and just returned.

I’ve now re-read test sheets and Michael’s and Sam’s postings and realized that I’d made a major mistake relative to the Original Kynoch cartridge loading data so I have now re-revised the spreadsheet…as well I have now used the Woodleigh FMJ as the “Bench Mark” comparison vis-à-vis my earlier use of the Kynoch. I had to make this change as the Kynoch cartridges were definitely from two era’s of Kynoch cartridge production meaning the solid was not the same bullet. However, the current Woodleigh FMJ C&C solid was designed utilizing the specifications of the WWII era Kynoch solid…so I believe that is a more applicable comparison.

Please accept my apology for the earlier errors.

Well I did it! It's posted downstairs! I am a little scared to stay down there lurking, but so far so good!

Ya'll know I am kidding eh? Think I am scared? HEH HEH HEH! Just funning with ya!

I dont' know, not sure I am giving a good presentation, maybe I am a little excited about this thing. Sam did one hell of a job, on this thing.

I have already ordered 250 of them myself in .500 caliber, I am going to start testing the same thing in the 50 B&Ms. Also will get some good accuracy numbers on them too, so far iron sights at 50 (Sam Shooting--Not Me-I can't even see the 50 yd target with the naked eye) looks good. But I want to get them all in the same hole at 50, and that takes a scope for me! Sorry, but it's true!

My boy Sam was a little worried about me going down stairs by myself, I told him I had balls big as those 2 bore bullets that Agent J sent me, Sam says "that small?", Smartass!

Michael

Capo

No sweat my man, we are all rolling on to try and catch up with this thing. I don't feel like I have put on much of a presentation myself of it, and I think we are all just trying to wrap around it and get it in perspective. Yes, I think what you have done may be better. Did you change the Pressure at Barrel Exit? It's not at the exit, maybe call it Barrel Strain or some such instead?????? Lack of a better term, I can't think of one.


Anyway, need to go downstairs and post it on that new thread I just started on the double forum!

M

Jim

I see it posted on doubles now. The Kynoch is in error. The 18000 psi was at the 19 inch mark! It was the barrel strain reading.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Jim

I see it posted on doubles now. The Kynoch is in error. The 18000 psi was at the 19 inch mark! It was the barrel strain reading.

Oops, I'll correct the data. Anything else? Is the terminology OK for the attachments?

Jim,

Don't hold me to the age of the Kynoch ammo, I just know it had two different primer sizes and I guessed at the time period. I'm no expert in old ammo. I do know they were cordite.

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Jim,

Don't hold me to the age of the Kynoch ammo, I just know it had two different primer sizes and I guessed at the time period. I'm no expert in old ammo. I do know they were cordite.

Sam

I wonder if the smaller could have been a Berdan primer and the larger a boxer primer??? Right now I'll renote them as "Older" and "Newer".

I suppose all is well with the rest of the spreadsheet. They actually refer to the one as "Chamber Pressure" I think? But that's fine, I don't think it's an issue. I reckon if someone don't like it, I will tell them don't look at then!

M

Jim,

Pretty sure both were Berdan primed. To be honest I only looked down into one after firing. The older one had a smaller primer but not by much. They both were stab crimped in the same place so I think they both had the crimp groove at the base of the bullet. Both noses looked the same. I may be way off on age. Headstamp had 470 on one side and small letters Kynoch on the other.

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I suppose all is well with the rest of the spreadsheet. They actually refer to the one as "Chamber Pressure" I think? But that's fine, I don't think it's an issue. I reckon if someone don't like it, I will tell them don't look at then!

M

Chamber Pressure was eliminated with the update posted on both BB & DR Forums - they were updated to indicate Pressure At 1.5" From Breech and Pressure at 19" From Breech.

I’ve also updated the 2 Kynoch Cartridges to indicate smaller primer and bigger primer…Sam hopefully I tagged them correctly.

Jim

If you have updated the Kynoch and posted, then that is fine, leave it like it is.

Just so you know, I have one of those BBW #13s in .500 caliber, 500 gr in my pocket right now, right along with my bottle of Nitro! So I place a good deal of importance on both!

Oh, and one more thing before I call it a night, it's dark here, and time for me to go! How about the title for the thread downstairs? How does that work for you, and where the hell has Peter ran off to?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Oh, and one more thing before I call it a night, it's dark here, and time for me to go! How about the title for the thread downstairs? How does that work for you, and where the hell has Peter ran off to?

"The Double Rifle Bullet of the Future!" works for me. Keep that BBW #13 .500 500gr safe!!!

Jim,

Lets not make this Kynoch thing get too confusing. Lets get Michael to look at the cases because I'm sure they are both Berdan primed. I think we need to find some original ammo that we know the date on to retest. I don't want this to be a problem.

Sam

Jim,Michael, Just found I had a full box of new Kynoch(Kynamco) SP ammo we can use for comparison.

Sam,

10-4 on the two older Kynoch cartridges; If Michael gets a chance to pull the primers I’ll update the data.

I understand that Kynoch now uses Woodleigh bullets in their NE ammunition…it’ll be interesting to see how closely the pressure data tracks between the 1.5” and 19” for the Kynoch cartridges and your reloaded ammunition using the Woodleigh bullets.

However after following your BBW #13 work for DRs I don’t know why anyone would desire to use anything other than a banded bore riding bullet.

We will be doing a lot of work with the BBW #13 over the next few months for sure. I am taking the nose profile to all other calibers, primary for the B&Ms, but also will be first runs of it that are not for the B&M cartridges. Then there is a plan to Hollow point the same bullet, and then a plan in place that I am having 250 of the 2 bands done in .500 caliber to do some more pressure tests in the 50 B&M and probably even the 500 MDM. So there is lot's to do, and besides that, Sam and I will be continuing the work on the 470 Nitro and factory ammo, and other bullets like the North Forks, Woodleigh Hydros, even a plan for the OLD BARNES RN SOLIDS. Things should be very interesting over the next few months!

So stay tuned, we have only just started, and no we have not completed anything yet, and nothing is 100% set in stone, except the fact that so far so good, and bullets are in the process and in production!


"Miles To Go Before We Sleep"

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Oh, and one more thing before I call it a night, it's dark here, and time for me to go! How about the title for the thread downstairs? How does that work for you, and where the hell has Peter ran off to?

sorry mate denmark is quite a bit ahead of you in the time department, and i had to get a bit of sleep, before a new day were looming.

up and around now and it looks good in the double rifle section as well

best

peter

Michael,

Just wondering, did you ever recover those 6.5mm bullets from the back side of the building?

BR

Peter

Yep, figured you are a few hours ahead of me there, and you are correct, all is well down stairs! I really had it figured that 90% + would be very positive and interested in new concepts.

Corbin

I have this rigged right now, anytime you post something that has 6.5 in the text, it automatically goes straight to "ignore".




HEH HEH!

Michael

Michael,

I'm just going to have to make you a 3 inch long .500 #13 to beat that 6.5 bullet so we can end that crap!

Sam

6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm,6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm,6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm,6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm,6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm,6.5mm, 6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm,6.5mm, 6.5mm, 6.5mm

Dont sing it bring it

BR

Couple of things I really want to.................

What? 6.5? What is that? This is big bores right, you must mean .65, I suppose that was a typo? My machine does not recognize something as small as .264/6.5, too small to see! HEH.

Opppps, there it goes again, my thread puts anything below .338 on "auto Ignore", maybe I must go to my preferences to change that? Nahhh, why worry with it.

HEH

Oh yes, back to there are a couple of things I want to point out, maybe besides just being obvious, about the work Sam and I did the other day with the #13s.

Of course, the 500 BBW #13 CEB Copper--lower pressure by 35% or so, and increased velocity over most of the bullets tested, and of course a very low barrel strain, far less strain than any of the common available bullets. All that is obvious, no need to go over that again.

There is one thing I have been thinking on, the 466 BBW #13 brass, one of Sam's samples. Same load, primer, brass everything. This bullet made of brass started out at higher pressure, I recall around 39000. The 500 BBW#13 Copper was 30000. But, by the time it got to the barrel strain gage that number was some less than the Copper #13 that started at lower pressure. I suppose it's possible that it takes more pressure to get the brass bullet moving, but once it gets going it is equal or does not put as much strain on the barrel?

Even in brass it seems the concept is viable.

M

Oh, and let me add, in all the excitement over the last couple of days with the BBW #13s, I nearly forgot! My buddy Sam brought some lead bullets for 470! And he hammered some of these through the Capstick barrels of mine. Ya'll know these barrels, they give no engraving at all on .473 caliber bullets, smooth as babies butts when they are recovered. Well they are not .474 caliber barrels, they are .477, both of them!

So I have .477 Capsticks!


I see we are now on Page 99! It's not going to be long now!


M

Michael,

YOU BROKE THE 100 PAGE!!!!!!! IF I would have just been a little sooner, You should have been the one to hit 100 anyway. Lots of great information.

You wonder why brass pressure is lower at the barrel stain gage. Two factors maybe, band is narrower and brass has more lubing quailities than copper.

Sam

All right...100 pages in 24 days short of one year. Very awesome information in 341 days!!!

Well I'll be damned! I was just commenting on the turning the page, and that post turned it to 100! I did not of course expect that. So here we are at page 100! Now What?

Sam, yes I was thinking the same about the brass going down the barrel, but taking more pressure to get it moving you think?
M

Ok I have to ask. Brass is harder than copper, yes? If so, could the initial higher pressure be due to the extra pressure required to groove the bands of the brass bullet? At the 19” mark, perhaps Sam is correct that the “seal tight” band being wider on the CEB Copper bullet creates slightly greater within barrel pressure than then narrower band on the brass bullet. Good question Michael, something that requires pondering.

Michael,

Brass harder to engrave so pressure up to start with.

Sam

Jim,

Man you are fast!

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Michael,

Brass harder to engrave so pressure up to start with.

Sam

Yeah I was correct for a change!

Jim,

You don't miss much!

Sam

Material state.

Frictional Coefficient.

Surface area.

Other not so mundane things requiring significant computing power to quantify.

quote:

Material state.

Frictional Coefficient.

Surface area.

Other not so mundane things requiring significant computing power to quantify.

Dr J,

The brain can’t function at that high a level today…well any day for that matter…especially as I’m trying to wrap my mind around all the background happenings in Rubicon as I try to catch up on the last three taped shows!!!

Michael/Sam,

Ok slightly harder bullet with a narrower band vis-à-vis a slightly softer bullet with a slightly wider band. It appears that CEB’s “seal tight band” doesn’t inhibit performance looking at muzzle velocity and the additional 252psi at the 19” measurement is basically inconsequential. Has the 500gr CEB copper bullet been put through the bullet box(es) yet? If so, any decrease in stable penetration vis-à-vis the brass bullet?