Thanks a million Sam!!

Don,

You're welcome and I hope you first two shots are in the same hole.

Sam

Don

Do keep us updated on that, I want to know how it goes as well!

M

A week or so ago I decided to try some barrel strains in .458 caliber. It was just natural for me to chose one of my 458 B&M rifles that I had been using for chamber pressures for this mission. This might have been a poor choice on my part, I never even thought about the 20 inch barrel and some of the issues I might have with a 7 lb 458 for this mission. Not recoil related, but Electrical and Recoil noise induced at the shorter distance between chamber and the location of the forward strain gage.

It became an issue with standard full power loads. For instance shooting a 450 gr bullet at 2250 fps as opposed to a slower bullet, a 500 at 2100 fps I would induce some wild readings at the end caused by recoil snatching at the wires hooked to the gage. Out of 5 rounds I might get only 1 smooth real barrel strain, the others getting bumps and noise at the end of the curve, higher than the peak at strain! So this was not going to work! What Sam and I did with the 470 worked very well, but it was almost always a 500 gr bullet in the 470 and all with the same load, and all close in velocity. This in combination with the longer barrel gave us some really good data.

With this in mind I felt like I had to get the bullets down in velocity, so I tried to do this at 2100 fps. Which will be the first set of numbers at the top of the chart. This started to work and come into play, but still not quite there. Out of 5 rounds now I was getting 2 and sometimes 3 reliable readings that showed a nice flat peak and tapering off with no jumps and bumps at the end. But I was still getting some wild cards thrown in. Not being quite satisfied with this, I spoke with Sam about it when he was here last week and we come to the conclusion that getting the velocities down to 1800 fps or less might start to bring things together.

So nothing would do, but Saturday I had to find out. So I went to work and found a load that would do pretty close to what Sam and I had talked about, 56/H-322 across the board. This fell in line very good with velocities on everything running from 1800-1900 fps. This very nearly took out all the noise and bumps at the end of the curves, gave me some smooth readings that seemed to fall in line and be more consistent across the board.

NOW PAY ATTENTION IN PARTICULAR TO THIS STATEMENT

You cannot compare these actual "Barrel Strain" numbers to the 470 Numbers! They are different barrels, not the same thickness, the 458 is even a stainless barrel that might have some bearing, so as far as actual barrel strain numbers there is NO correlation between 470 tests and these 458 tests. What you can see is a comparison of how the bullets fall in line from low to high. At least in some cases and in general.

I suppose that one would still consider the Woodleigh Soft Round Nose still a "BenchMark" bullet for comparison with others. The North Forks and CEBs are still within that range. Some higher, some lower.

Now I got a very big surprise with some of the "Barnes Banded" coming in so Low? I decided to measure bullet diameters, and found out why they came in low! They are way undersized in my opinion, at .456. These were from a batch of the very first Barnes Banded that came on the market several years ago in the Blue Boxes. I can only suppose Barnes was frightened of "barrel Strain" and thus undersized these. I know on later versions I have measured them at only being undersized by .001, and that is fine on a mono and most are undersized by that much. Now, one can continue to "UnderSize" a bullet until you get to "ZERO" barrel strain, so that is no big secret, but one also begins to suffer instability at some point?

I ran out of time Saturday and I still have questions concerning some of the strains that I have not been able to answer just yet. I am going to continue testing, hopefully some this week and gather more data, and compare data as well. By no means is this or do I claim this is absolute, it's a test, these are the results of Saturdays work, there is much left to do, and much left to attempt to confirm. There is a trend, but that is about all right now. A work in progress.




Michael

Finally had a break in the weather this week and was able to shoot my V-C .500 with the BBW #13's. Loading 95 gr. RL15 with backer rod filler, both the 570 gr. brass solid and the 535 gr. brass non con's shot well and to the same POI. Per Sam's advice, bullets were seated deep yielding 3.68 OAL. I will be receiving BBW #13 bullets this week to try in my V-C .577.

Michael has agreed to order some .468 dia. BBW #13's for my upcoming 1928 H&H .500/.465. Anyone having a need for the .468 dia. bullet please contact Michael to help him with a group buy.

One word of caution. The cartridges with brass bullets in brass cases are so pretty that you won't want to shoot them!

Thanks again to Sam and Michael.

Don,

Glad those bullets shot well for you. I really think these are the best dangerous game bullets available for double rifles. We just need to get more animals down with them to prove it. So far they regulate really well in every caliber tried. I will be testing the .375s and .409s this week with Michael.

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Don,

Glad those bullets shot well for you. I really think these are the best dangerous game bullets available for double rifles. We just need to get more animals down with them to prove it. So far they regulate really well in every caliber tried. I will be testing the .375s and .409s this week with Michael.

Sam

If they shoot well out of my upcoming 600NE (and there is no reason to assume they won't) then they will be my choice for elephant in November.

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleDon:
Per Sam's advice, bullets were seated deep yielding 3.68 OAL. I will be receiving BBW #13 bullets this week to try in my V-C .577.

I'm very interested to see how they do in your V-C .577. Do you plan to try to seat them between the first and second band or crimp over the top band or try both?

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleDon:
One word of caution. The cartridges with brass bullets in brass cases are so pretty that you won't want to shoot them!

Thanks again to Sam and Michael.

Yeah, I found that out when I loaded some 450-400s up. Almost too pretty ...

Michael

Have u tried any of the three band CEB's yet???

Bowen475

Not yet, they are in the works. I am hoping to have them sometime this week, and starting some extensive test work next week, Maybe?

It will be very interesting.

Michael

Hey Guys, it's been some time since we had much for you to digest, and I am still behind on much of the test work. However there are a few things that you can take a look at that I do have completed.

Within the last few weeks we have been thinking of trying our best to improve barrel strains, and reduce pressures with the CEBs. One of these brain storms was to move from a 4 band system to a 3 band--2 top, 1 bottom. In addition to the lesser bearing surface, to reduce diameters of the bands as well, I tested several different configurations. Some with a top band of say .457 and bottom band at .456 and so forth.

How does one reduce barrel strain? 1. Reduce Bearing Surface 2. Reduce Diameter. I contended that one could get to zero barrel strain if you reduced the diameter enough? Well, I was wrong about that part as you will see somewhere below. I could not help myself, since I was doing the barrel strain tests with a 458 B&M, I decided to shoot a 416 B&M in the rifle to see what would happen--CHILDREN DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME!!!!! HEH HEH---well I did get the lowest barrel strain with the 416 caliber North Fork 400 gr FPS, however I did get a bump regardless, so I think even if you shot a "Blank" down the barrel you would get some sort of reading!

Now a bit about doing barrel strains. A strain gage is a rather delicate and sensitive tool. Any day you may hook up, you will very likely get some different readings just because of connection, environmental changes, electrical noise, or "Just Because it's So". Now running chamber pressures it's not a big deal to have a change of 1000-2000 PSI per any given test, sometimes in chamber pressures it's common to have that shot to shot. But when things are as close as barrel strain--some cases very little difference between bullets, then todays reading of 15000 PSI as average--may be extremely high for tomorrows run of barrel strains that are averaging 12000 PSI! So, with this in mind, this past Monday I had all these experimental bullets to test, I had to retest and test everything I had to get a direct comparison for that test day! I could not use the test from a few weeks ago to compare against, that might be off. So it was all or none.

Another thing I started thinking about was the barrel heating up between tests? I felt a hot barrel might not give the same reading as a cold barrel. So to regulate temps I set up an industrial fan blowing continuously over the rifle and barrel to keep it the same temp. This worked rather well and did what I needed.

Now it is rather easy once you understand the system to know when things are "RIGHT", and when things are not. Starting out Monday morning everything looked and connections felt right, but after the first two traces I knew that something was not right, and the connection was bad. I ended up trading, switching and working with the connection until I got it perfect.

This is what a bad connection will look like;



First the readings are way too high for barrel strains under most circumstances. And you see the two traces are all over the place in the peaks. Easy to see something is not right here.

After getting a proper connection this is what a normal barrel strain should look like



CONTINUED

Now that I had a really consistent, good connection I proceeded to go to work. You may take note that on Mondays work the numbers are much lower than on the previous work, for whatever reason, whether it is environmental, electrical, or maybe the way I was holding my mouth at the time, this is the way it is. And the reason if one is comparing a run of bullets, have to do them all at once to get that days comparisons, especially with little built up data over a long period of time, which we do not have, nor does anyone else on the planet! Now in addition to this, with such close numbers on any given test the ranking can change from one test to the next.

For example of this on your data sheet below, take a look at 480 CEB 3 Band at 11653 and the 480 CEB 4 Band at 11695. That is no difference, the next test that could easy turn around in ranking and be the other way around. Even a few hundred PSI difference is nothing to even look at.

Now, I am trying to learn right along with you guys. From all I gather from you double guys is that a Woodleigh Soft is a relatively "DOUBLE SAFE" bullet, and that most all of you are fine with that. So I use that as a "BENCHMARK" bullet. If a bullets strain on the barrels is less than a Woodleigh Soft, and that is consistent, then it must be OK. It strain comes in OVER that Benchmark Bullet, then I think I would look at that with a serious concern. Even with some of the bullets that are very close in test to test, the overall rankings fall pretty much in line with both .458 and the 470s that Sam and I did. I have taken the liberty on one of the data sheets to combine the different tests in 3 different rankings so you can see that some things cross lines regardless of caliber or barrel.

This was Mondays work. Now to continue this I am planning on next week doing a chamber pressure test on all the most important bullets used. With that we will be able to see what bullets have the lowest pressures as well. This data will be added when that is complete. From there, I really don't know where to go with this.



Michael

This is what your Benchmark Bullet looks like on the PT.



If you notice most all the conventional bullets come up the curve on a sharp bump right to begin with, then taper down.


North Fork and CEBs have a low flatter curve






And all the cast bullets have a bump and then second peak.



Michael

Rankings of various test work done in both 458 and 470.

I thought you just had a typo with that 416 thrown in. Thats funny that you shot one in the 458. Was it stable? HA HA Mad scientist for sure!

Sam

Yep, curiosity got the best of me. Put a 416 caliber bullet down a 458 bore--well it has the lowest barrel strain for sure! HEH HEH--my point about going down in diameter works I suppose. Shot one hell of a group at 25 yds, about 12 inches or so for 3 rds. Of course they hit sideways? Hmmmmmm? I guess you can only go so far with barrel strain until you start to have problems and issues eh?

Due to the lack of any sort of response it would seem that there is no interest in this subject, other than you and I and maybe a small handful of others. With this in mind I am going to discontinue any further test work on this, other than of course what you and I do. Since it is not pertinent to me personally, I have much other work that has come up short because of this, so I will get on with my other work and discontinue barrel strains and pressure work on this. Without any interest in the subject there is no need in wasting my time on it.


Michael

Michael

I for one have been following everything you have been doing in both forums--I just didn't want to bug you. I hope I am not the only one interested in your work with respect to double rifles--especially the owners of old rifles should be very interested in your work with respect to the 3 band versions and barrel strain/pressure. I hope you at least complete ur pressure tests to go along with the barrel strain data you just did. However, I do understand if u cannot due to time constraints--and I truly appreciate the work you have done to date. Hopefully with the work you've done so far CEB can come up with a viable 3 band version--as I have an old 475 No 2 Jefferies in the closet waiting on the 3 bands.

I any case I will continue to follow your work on the Big Bore side and again many thanks for all your time and hard work on the DR side.

Michael,

Thanks for all the work you did do on the barrel strains and I really enjoyed helping you with them. I agree with you that so few people seem interested that it isn't worth your time or effort to do this. Especially since you don't own a double and probably never will. I know a few people are glad you did it and will use the information. Maybe this whole thread should be dropped done to lack of interest.

Sam

Lack of interest?
This discussion thread is very interesting.
I've been standing back and watching, not much to add from my perspective as this appears to be a report of work in progress.

I find the pressure trace data the most interesting, especially where the cast bullets come out with such wacky graphs. I don't run cast bullets in my centerfire double rifles, but often see 'low pressure...' boastings (without PT data) from guys reporting on their cast-bullet DR loads.
Very interesting!



Seeing this thread and the thread in the BigBore page, I'm amazed at the time and detail you've gone to in these bullet studies.
Great stuff!



Cheers
Tinker

Hi Tinkerer and Bowen

Thanks! It is in progress no doubt. And I do appreciate it. I would like input and ideas, and discussion about the project. I only have so many ideas, and they are not always spot on! I may miss something, I have lot's going on. Everyone can have something to add, just as you both have added much without knowing, just in some simple discussion.

Tink, they might have low pressure at the chamber end, but those cast bullets are putting some serious strain on the barrels themselves, that is no doubt. It was a surprise to both Sam and I as well when those showed up, we expected something entirely different with the cast. I did anyway.

From my perspective when I post the data, it goes by several days and there is no input, no response, no discussion or questions, just nothing, I begin to question if there is interest or not.

I finished the Chamber Pressure part of this work today. I will be working on getting the data recorded, and post it here when finished. Then I think we should all have some discussion about the results and the changes or no changes that we might take, collectively as a group. This is for you guys with doubles, what do you want to see? Sam said it, I don't have a double, and probably won't ever have one, if I am to help you out, I need your input on the matter. Sam and I will be making some recommendations on any changes or not to the bullets based on this newest data, if you want a say in it you are most welcome to have your input, and I would very much welcome it! If you don't speak up, then you will have it "My Way or the Highway"---HEH HEH HEH............

Thanks to all!

Michael

Michael-

Keep up the effort!
In a way I'm a little jealous of you around the bullet/ballistics journey you've been on.
A few years ago I was essentially mid-order on a pile of equipment which would have been my own (much like yours) lab.
The news of the first child 'on the way' put a switch in those tracks, and now on child three I have no regrets.

Since then I've sold the big-city Victorian palace and moved the clan out into the country. Only very recently have I unpacked and started setting up the machine shop. Hopefully by summer I'll have all spindles turning, including the little CNC lathe.

This work you're doing is a big step forward to the 'Open Source' monolithic bullet movement.
There is (really now...) very little science to the actual making of cupric solids, and this study you're on is showing the light on a (pretty flexible) design model that seems to have very good promise around barrel-safe bullets.

I recently followed a whim to run some Barnes TSX bullets through my .458 at pretty high velocity, into an unforgiving backstop, and the end result was (to me and to the backstop) pretty shocking.
I'm getting the sense that there are better chances for me and my rifles to be happy with (properly designed) cupric monos than I had expected.

I think I know what's happening with those cast bullets, and I've steered away from them in my express rifle loading on purpose - also as I'd done pretty well with modern jacketed softs so far.
More to think on as I feed the wood stove and feed my 8mo old infant tonight...



Cheers
Tinker

Tinker

Ahh yes, kids can change things no doubt. But what are you going to do? I have 3 also, do you want them too? HEH HEH-----Kidding! Yeah I think we are breaking ground on some things that needed doing.

If I were a double guy, I would have very serious concerns about cast bullets for sure.


For the most part I completed the Chamber Pressure test work on the loads and bullets concerned in the barrel strain tests. No great revealing miracles worked. It would appear that weight of the projectile is a bit more important in chamber pressures than bearing surface and diameters.

Some things of note;

While chamber pressures of the 480s ran higher than some of the common conventional bullets, velocities were also notably higher.

Difference between the Woodleigh Soft Chamber Pressures and Woodleigh FMJ Chamber Pressures is notable, while velocity remained constant between the two. And barrel strain significantly lower with the Woodleigh Soft.

Woodleigh FMJ and all the 480 CEBs Chamber Pressure near the same--Velocity of the 480 CEB Much higher, friction and bearing surface effects.

500 Barnes Banded, lowest barrel strain due to .456 actual diameter (I suspect), and highest pressure of all tested?

Big Winners overall---Cutting Edge Bullets and North Fork, as we all suspected.

Big Losers in My opinion--All Cast Bullets, Woodleigh FMJ, of course the old Barnes RN without bands, the old Barnes X with No bands, looser bullets in all tests conducted.




Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Some things of note;

Difference between the Woodleigh Soft Chamber Pressures and Woodleigh FMJ Chamber Pressures is notable, while velocity remained constant between the two. And barrel strain significantly lower with the Woodleigh Soft.

Woodleigh FMJ and all the 480 CEBs Chamber Pressure near the same--Velocity of the 480 CEB Much higher, friction and bearing surface effects.

Michael

Very interesting.

Seems a good starting point for load development with CEBs would be to use starting load data intended for Woodleigh solids rather than that for softs.

I think most of you who are interested have already seen these on the Terminal thread upstairs. However, Sam would like for me to post some of the data here on this thread, bring it back from page 7 just in case some of you don't venture upstairs, and might have any interest at all.

Starting with some new CEB BBW#13s that have the nitro bands, and worked extremely well in Sams double rifle in 45/70 a few weeks ago. I will just show some photos and I think you will get the jest of it.













Michael

Here we have a series of tests done with .620 caliber with the 900 gr CEB BBW#13 Solid and it's matching 825 BBW#13 NonCon. While this work was done with a 600 OverKill belonging to CCMDoc, many of the velocities, if not all, can be matched in the 600 Nitro. Starting from low velocity, and moving up.






















Just FYI is all

Michael

Such a cool collection of info!

Just wanted to add my thanks to Michael and Sam for all the time, effort, and expense they put into providing us with this information. I will also be watching for the results with the 3-band version.

Thanks again,

Bill E.

Bill,

You are welcome! Michael and I had a lot of fun doing it and learned a bunch. I really hope that this information has helped.

Sam

Sam,
For those who believe "good enough" simply isn't, your work has been invaluable.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
From my perspective when I post the data, it goes by several days and there is no input, no response, no discussion or questions, just nothing, I begin to question if there is interest or not.

Thanks to all!

Michael

Michael,

both this and the terminal ballistics threads are very interesting and highly informative. I suspect the few comments are not due to lack of interest - many of us are clearly following them - but recognition that your data-based findings and conclusions are worth quite a bit more than opinions.

Based on your data, I plan to load the .510" CEB #13s in my 500 NE 3" for next week's range session. I'll be comparing them to the Barnes Banded Solids for regulation (with RL-15 as that seems to give me the closest velocities to regulation MV in my DR) and will use one of them in August. Hoping it turns out to be the CEB Solid as the data supports its use for max straight line penetration.

Keep the test data coming!

quote:

Michael,

both this amd the terminal ballistics threads are very interesting and highly informative. I suspect the few comments are not due to lack of interest - many of us are clearly following them - but recognition that your data-based findings and conclusions are worth quite a bit more than opinions.

Based on your data, I plan to load the .510" CEB #13s in my 500 NE 3" for next week's range session. I'll be comparing them to the Barnes Banded Solids for regulation (with RL-15 as that seems to give me the closest velocities to regulation MV in my ) and will use one of them in August. Hoping it turns out to be the CEB Solid as the data supports its use for max straight line penetration.

6.5 Wild

Those same .510 BBW#13s you are talking about are very nice bullets. They make me like my 510 Wells, at least for range work, as it is too heavy for field work, and it does not say Winchester on it! But the bullets are fantastic. Good luck, and I hope they work for you. Do keep us posted on that.

Wpe2

Well keep up with us, there is no telling what might peak our curiosity next? I did start tests with the 3 band, and there was so little difference and none in some cases as opposed to the 4 bands for barrel strain I moved on to some other things, and have never made it back to do more with the 3 band bullet. Maybe when I return I will do some chamber pressure tests with them as opposed to the 4 band versions. But right now, I am really liking the 4 bands a lot! Just getting such good performance and accuracy from them.

Michael

Hi everyone,

The testing done with " 45/70 Bullets & Loads ", have put a renewed interest, back into my two " 45/70 Rifles " (Leveraction Marlin / Harrington & Richardson). I no longer have to concern myself with what bullets to use, in areas with restrictions, i.e; " NO LEAD BULLETS & HUNTING "(I.E.: *CALIFORNIA LEAD FREE*).

" GREAT TESTING & THANKS "

PAPI

Thanks, Michael. The 4 bands it will be.

Bill E.

quote:

Originally posted by PAPI:
Hi everyone,

The testing done with " 45/70 Bullets & Loads ", have put a renewed interest, back into my two " 45/70 Rifles " (Leveraction Marlin / Harrington & Richardson). I no longer have to concern myself with what bullets to use, in areas with restrictions, i.e; " NO LEAD BULLETS & HUNTING ".

" GREAT TESTING & THANKS "

PAPI

PAPI

I know what you mean about getting your interest peaked. When I got the new CEB .474s, all the sudden I have taken a real interest in the new 475 B&Ms which I am waiting on dies for now. But those bullets I got did the trick, and turned the tide of interest in their favor. Until the bullets showed up, interest was a little ho--humm! But now.....Hmmmm, might be able to really make a thumper out of the 475s with proper bullets!

Michael

Michael,

I am way to lazy to go back through this thread to get an answer to this question. How much difference in barrel strain levels and chamber pressures are their among two, three and four band CEB solids? Does it pay to stick with the two bands for double rifles?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Good Afternoon Double Guys!

Lot's to report, and I yet do not have it all put together, especially the T'Rex terminals that Sam and I did yesterday. But I do have the barrel strain reports ready--I think!

If you have been following this thread at all, you know Sam and myself were busy yesterday doing the "barrel Strains" on the new copper 4 band .474s caliber bullets.



As suspected the barrel strains on the new 4 band bullet were well within reason, and lower than most everything on the market. We ran several tests with the 500 CEB BBW #13 and the 470 NonCon. The 500 gr CEB BBW #13 Copper came in on average 21430. With the Woodleigh SP on average of 22895. I think all of you consider that a proper bullet for doubles, so I consider that as a benchmark so to speak, and Sam agrees.

The barrel strain data sheet has grown to 2 pages now, and I apologize for that. This will be available to you via the B&M site, under Additional Research in down loadable pdf format, as soon as I can get time to add the report, hopefully this week.






I think now is the time to tell you that Sam and I have made a decision concerning the materials the bullets are made of. If you take a look at the barrel strain sheet, you will see we tested a few of these bullets made in "brass". From the first set of these tests we had a brass BBW #13 that gave even less barrel strain than the 2 band original copper #13. But was still very close. Now once again we tested a brass version, and it came in equal to, or slightly better than the copper bullet! In addition, the NonCons work much better in brass, than in copper as well. In all T'Rex tests conducted since I started doing T'Rex tests a year ago, brass solids always come out on top in that arena as well. If barrel strain remains low with these new bands, Sam and I both think that the production runs should be done in brass. Another great attribute to the brass bullet is also one that everyone can understand, it comes at a much reduced price when compared to copper!

Right now--Today--brass has EVERYTHING going for it, barrel strain, NonCon performance, tougher construction, and price to boot! There is no downside as long as barrel strain remains equal in the very near future test work, which we will be doing again within the next week or so to CONFIRM this beyond doubt.

In addition to that Sam named the new line of bullets for you guys too, along with a minor band change, a bit more spacing between the top 3 bands so you guys can crimp, and choose where you want to seat the bullet, some added versatility. The new bullets will be designated "Nitro Express" Bullets!

Sam and I have much more for you, I just have not had time to get it all put together today. We have more on the Dacron vs Foam for you, we have T'Rex terminals to post, we have the 470 NonCon we tested in copper, along with several other things that can be discussed as well. I will work on this tomorrow again for you and get it up as I can.

Posted here as well as terminals upstairs.

Michael

465 H&H here is what you are looking for. I personally still like the 2 band but with low neck tension I don't think CEB wants to make them. 4 band isn't that much more barrel strain.

Sam

Sam and Michael,

Thinking about a plinking round for my 600s.

Think CEB would make a deep/wide cavity Non-con of ~ 700 grains for blowing up fruits and water bottles?

CCMDoc,

I'm sure CEB will make almost anything you want if you order enough.

Sam

What does BBW mean please; when we see CEB BBW #13?

The rest I know. Thanks guys.

quote:

Originally posted by BigFiveJack:
What does BBW mean please; when we see CEB BBW #13?

The rest I know. Thanks guys.

Jack

BBW is a very secret code name. I am sure, if you found out exactly what it meant, the knowledge could lead to very......let's just say, unpleasantness!





No man! OK, back when Sam was making so many samples of all sorts of things for us to try, I accused him of over working his "Bastard File", making bullets! So pretty soon Sam came up with the name of his "Bullet Making Business". LOL

Bastard Bullet Works---AKA---BBW. Since it had a 13 degree nose angle--BBW#13




And the rest is History.

Michael