quote:

---

Originally posted by MacD37:

I'm not saying he is wrong, just that I have never heard of experiences, like his, anyplace but from him!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanatak:
Having recently taken the double rifle plunge, I am completely set up to begin loading. I was prepared to load the 470 NE with RL-15 and foam fillers, which were cut just a few days ago. I have read every double rifle post in this forum, Wright's book, Ross' article (thanks to Rusty), Boddington's writings on loading for doubles and quite a few other articles and books on the subject. Now this! .....

---

That's my situation too!! (Except the part about already having cut the foam fillers.) I bought my first double rifle (in .470) just 3 weeks ago. I've read the same books and every article by Ross Seyfried that I can get my hands on. I've subscribed to the Double Gun Journal for the last four years. Rifle and Handloader magazines also. I got Wright's book and have read it three times so far. I thought I had done my research rather well and was all set to go. My reloading dies should be here next week. And now this!!! It's enough to drive a fellow crazy!!

-Bob F.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1894:
Foam = plastic

Plastic melts

Molten plastic slams against the base of the bullet which when it hits the lands 'pauses' the molten plastic spreads lateraly, having some velocity and acting as a fluid it exerts a force on the chamber which can cause the metal of the chamber to be moved!

I did exactly this with dacron in my 9.3x62 causing a groove in the neck of the chamber approx. 5 thou wide by 3-5 thou deep visible on brass and via a bore scope. It only took about 10 shots!

I rebarreled and learnt a lesson namely thatthe reloading books know more than most 'experts'

---

1894, inregard to your post to me, I have no doubt you had the failier you discribe in your 9.3X62, bolt rifle! My question to you is why were you useing a filler at all in a 30-06 case? The 9.3x62, ins nothing but a 9.3/06 and as such is a high pressure cartridge, with only a 74.87 grs water capacity. This cartridge simply doesn't need filler. The fillers are used to fill the giagantic case capacities of the old NITRO EXPRESS cartridges which were origenally loaded with Cordite, and must be loaded with modern smokeless powder, which do not fill the case more tha half, or a little over with a proper load. The only thing I can think of that would make you think you needed filler in that cartridge, is your trying to make VERY light squib loads, which are dangerous with or without fillers. Besides Dacron fiber fill is not melted, but spit out the muzzle, unless pressures are very high! Were you trying to fire form?

What powders were you useing, and what powder/bullet weights? If you don't want to post this info publicly, then my E-mail is:

DUGABOY1@aol.com I'm interested in the details of this ringing of your rifle!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Gentlemen
I've read 2 posters that say they are not using fillers on 577 and 600. I would like to know thier loads, as I've been behind a couple hangfires on 577.... and the FIRST one will make you want to see jesus, because you KNOW it's going to GO BOOM, you just have to wait for it... the second ( and later ones) make you wish the truck would just run you over to get it over with.

In bert.brass, which is much thinner than bell.

Loads being 90, 100, 105, 110, 115 grains of rl 15 without filler. These are baby starter loads, but the finishing loads, we stil use a filler, and those are MUCH more than these, as are at 2050 to 2060.

So, fellas, what powder are ya using? We might have to switch over to that.

Jeffe

---

Jeffe

You are right, I can not imagine anything much worse than waiting for a hangfire on a .577NE. Perhaps falling off of a 50 story building and waiting to hit the ground?

.577 3 " 145 grains IMR 4831
.600 160 grains IMR 4831

I got both of these loads from Jim Bell a few years ago. The .577 load he recommended was 142 grains but 145 is what shot. 2050fps.

I have posted before on my low opinion of Bertram brass. I find it thicker than BELL and thus after the bullet is seated the added thickness will not allow chambering in my 450#2 nor any of my .577's

PS Don't forget that it is the length of time the bullet is in the barrel that determines the flip, not the velocity at 10 feet.

[ 10-05-2002, 02:01: Message edited by: mickey ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mickey:
[QUOTE]I have posted before on my low opinion of Bertram brass. I find it thicker than BELL and thus after the bullet is seated the added thickness will not allow chambering in my 450#2 nor any of my .577's

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mickey:
Gentlemen

I don't understand the fascination with R-15. Isn't it a faster powder than either R-22 or IMR 4831? Wouldn't you be getting more pressure from this powder, especially if you lessen the case capacity with a filler?

Just asking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MacD37:
DACRON FIBERFILL #1

GRANULATED BUFFER #2

FOAM #3 Used by Federal in their 470NE

NO FILLER # 100, or maybe # 1000, ( this is the most dangerous of the combinations,in large NE cases with modern powders,especially with slow burning powders, IMO!


POWDER FORMULAS

GRAEME WRIGHT'S IMR 4831 formula # 1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mickey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MacD37:
NO FILLER # 100, or maybe # 1000, ( this is the most dangerous of the combinations,in large NE cases with modern powders,especially with slow burning powders, IMO!


POWDER FORMULAS

GRAEME WRIGHT'S IMR 4831 formula # 1

---

MacD37
I am also confused. You say slow powders with full cases are #100 or #1000 in your lists of do's and then you cite Graeme's IMR4831 as #1 on your loadings.
His 4831 loads are full case , no filler loads. Did I misunderstand your post?

---

Micky, I'm forever writeing things that do not come out in print, the way I mean them! This is one of those times. I did not say slow powders FULL CASE, what I said was slow powders NO FILLER. There are very few NE cases that a proper load of IMR/H 4831 comes anywhere near filling the case. Most leave quite a lot of airspace in the case. Graeme Wright's opinion is "NO AIRSPACE" is the way to go, on most NE cases, that started their lives filled with black powder, then converted to CORDITE, with no change in case size. This critirea covers mos NE rounds. The 470NE started life as a somkeless powder round, comming out in 1906.

Firstly Graeme Wright's loads are without filler on only a few cases. The above mentioned 470NE is one. The 470 NE is one case that can be loaded with slow powders, useing no filler. I think this is where most folks are comeing up with the opinion, fillers are not needed. It is the opinion of Mr Seyfried, that 4831 powder is dangerous with or without filler. His reasoning is that the pressure curve is carried farther down the tubes to where they are much thinner than at the chamber. I personally think this is not the case, and is only something to write in a magazine, nothing more! It seems I'm only one of many who use IMR/H 4831 + filler with great success! For the building of barrels for double rifles let me quote Mr. Alexander Gray, form his book THE HAMMERLESS DOUBLE RIFLE on page 44, Quote#1 "A point of major concern regarding the design of the barrels is, the sectional density of the barrel material at the throat area of the chamber. PEAK pressure levels within the barrel, are experienced within this zone. It is is imperative that the wall thickness of the barrel be in dirrect proportion to intended pressure. This will ensure sufficient strength in order to prevent a fracture from occuring"

QT #2 " Rifle barrels steel must be able to withstand many tons of pressure. Therefore, as a standard rule of thumb within the industry, a steel's tensile strength is to be at least 50 tons per square inch." Tons in this case are 2833 PSI. This makes me very sceptical when the long pressure curve is touted as a problem in double rifle tubes. The quotes above are not the opinion of Mr Gray's, but were from Holland & Holland dirrectly!

I tend to take Mr Wright's findings more sound, since all Wright's loads are pressure tested in the UK at proof houses. As far as I know. Seyfried's are only guesses! I can't remember one time in any of Mr Seyfried's writeings, mention of pressure testing of his loads.

[ 10-07-2002, 21:38: Message edited by: MacD37 ]