Gentlemen,

I live in the UK and this is my first post. I recently contacted Lebeau-Courally regarding them building me a new 450/400 DR rifle and below is their reply.

Could someone knowledgeable please explain this. Many 450/400 are built on box locks. I can't believe it's just a sales pitch to encourage me to spend more money, so what exactly is the problem here?

Many thanks.


"Dear Sir,

A quick check with CIP shows that this cartridge generates 2.700 BAR easily.

This makes it unsuitable for a box lock actioned gun according to our policy. We feel that investing in one of our guns should guarantee that your grandchildren will still have the pleasure of using the original gun.

This level of pressure over a long life means a Side Lock action imperatively, regardless of what other makers do, we know that a boxlock action cannot handle this type of pressure over a long period of time.

A sidelock action of this type means a budget starting at 70.000€.

Please advise.

At your disposal.

Kind Regards,"

I've always been a fan of sidelocks and believe them to be the stronger action... but this seems total BS to me...

There are plenty of damned old 450/400NE boxlocks still going strong, and rejointing a double rifle isn't a big deal anyway.

JPK

I don't accept that the 450/400 3" [or 3 1/4"] needs to be built on a sidelock

action. In that caliber there are many, many boxlocks made by the classic old

U.K. makers and many newer ones from makers in other nations. For a new rifle I

strongly recommend British maker www.ttproctor.com "hands down". Trevor Proctor

operates in England only about 12 - 15 min's from Manchester Airport. His Best,

Scalloped Back Box Lock rifles start at 20,000 Brit pounds. I have shot one he

built in 375 H&H Belted Rimless. It is a wonderful piece of work. Trevor is in progress

on a 600 NE Boxlock for a man I know who lives in England too. Contact TTP, visit
him, he'll "stear you straight".

Thanks Jack. Trevor Proctor was the first maker I tried, albeit some time ago. His rifles are worth every penny of the £23K he now charges, that's within my range and I'd love to have one, but he seems to work alone and the waiting time is unbelievable. W.R. can build it on a box lock with a decent delivery time but they do seem expensive. I've also tried Jeffery, who can't seem to get the right components for the correct action size, and McayBrown, who could make the correct size action but say it would only be economical for them on a "10 off basis". (At £42k each!)

Given the above, I thought a good Belgium rifle might be the best answer. I'll try Dumoulin or one of the other bespoke continental makers next.

C.B.

You might have a look at the french guns too.
I have a Chapuis that is very nice.

Here's a few more for window shopping...

www.ejchurchillgunmakers.com
www.cogswell.co.uk
www.williamevans.com
www.jroberts-gunmakers.co.uk
www.hellis.com
www.watsonbrosgunmakers.com
http://www.ziegenhahn.com/frame.html
http://www.famars.com/famars_today.htm
http://www.ferlachguns.com/

LC is certainly a well respected maker, but the reply doesn't make sense.

Per CIP, max average pressure on the 450/400 3" is 2800 bar... same as the 500 NE 3". Would they advise the same on the 500?

FYI - here are a few others for refrence:
450 3.25" = 3050
450 #2 = 2800
470 = 2700

C B Bear,

www.ttproctor.com build time should be under 18 months per a gent I

spoke to only last month who is seriously considering going ahead with an

order! What build time do you believe Trevor has? You'll have a FORGED

action too. Not many makers are offering that in this price range.

Jack,

Last time I spoke to him he said that it would be well over two years - and that didn't sound at all definate. I'll contact him again next week. Thanks again.

C.B.

quote:

Originally posted by C.B. Bear:
Could someone knowledgeable please explain this. Many 450/400 are built on box locks. I can't believe it's just a sales pitch to encourage me to spend more money, so what exactly is the problem here?

Many thanks.


"Dear Sir,

A quick check with CIP shows that this cartridge generates 2.700 BAR easily.

This makes it unsuitable for a box lock actioned gun according to our policy. We feel that investing in one of our guns should guarantee that your grandchildren will still have the pleasure of using the original gun.

This level of pressure over a long life means a Side Lock action imperatively, regardless of what other makers do, we know that a boxlock action cannot handle this type of pressure over a long period of time.

A sidelock action of this type means a budget starting at 70.000€.

The obvious cynical reaction ($$$) is possible. My hunch is that they have enough work at the moment, haven't built a .400 in many decades, if ever, aren't familiar with it (which their response indicates), and don't want the aggravation of building a rifle in a caliber that may effectively be entirely new to them - which can be a headache as other makers have discovered as they've picked up the .400 again - without it being worth their while.

The reason given is pure BS though. To suggest that the .400 is too high pressure (CIP MAP 40,610 PSI), when they've routinely built boxlocks in .470 (CIP MAP 39,160 PSI) is absurd. The .450/.400 was the most popular of all large bore nitro doubles, and the British built more in that caliber than any other. The vast majority of those were boxlocks. I've seen a number of century old fixed pin boxlock .400s that were used up and completely shot out, but were still tight as a rat trap and showed no evidence of ever having been re-jointed (in the old days it was done by dovetailing the hook, which is visible). I've been shooting my .400 for 20 years, and it was 74 years old when I got it.

The last time I asked Paul Roberts (W. J. Jeffery & Co.) if he was building any new Jeffery .400s, he said that he saw no need to because so many had been built, and that they were so easy to find. That isn't true anymore.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I agree with 400Nitro Express, LC simply doesn't want to build a "one off" , and the starting price of 70,000 euro is simply a dodge! A well made box lock is as strong as any side lock, and is less likely to have the stock crack in the wrist because of the more wood removal for the locks, in the weakest part of the wood!

Don't worry about it, simply buy a $16K Heym 450/400 3" and forget the snobbs!

quote:

Originally posted by new_guy:
LC is certainly a well respected maker, but the reply doesn't make sense.

Per CIP, max average pressure on the 450/400 3" is 2800 bar... same as the 500 NE 3". Would they advise the same on the 500?

FYI - here are a few others for refrence:
450 3.25" = 3050
450 #2 = 2800
470 = 2700

I'll admit that the old copper crusher method of pressure measurement may not be a true indication of actual pressure, but I wonder where you found or CIP determined these "new" pressures.

The old stuff:

450/400 3" @ 2150 fps = 16 tons = 35,840 psi.
450 No. 2 = 13 tons = 13 tons = 29, 120 psi
470 = 14 tons = 31,360 psi

Now apparently the CIP is from your post:

450/400 3" @ 2150 fps = 2800 bar = 41,160 psi.
450 No. 2 = 2800 bar = 41,160 psi
470 = 2700 bar = 39,690 psi

The 450/400 pressures are "almost" similar, 10%. Maybe this is the difference between the old copper crusher and the newer peizoelectric pressure measurement methods. And the 470 and 450 #2 are a lot different.

But I don't believe for a second that 450 #2 pressures are going to be greater than for the 470 NE.

Chris, are you sure of these numbers?

Thanks.

Lebeau-Courally sounds like they are giving you Le Bull Crapley.

And if their standard boxlock action is not strong enough to support the pressures in a 450/400, I would seriously question its use for other calibers. Their response makes it sound like their boxlocks are total pieces of junk.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Chris, are you sure of these numbers?

Thanks.

Will - I only know what they tell me. Those are transducer numbers that came from CIP's "Comprehensive Edition of Adopted C.I.P. Decisions" (Edition 2005.)

Here's the specific page.

Chris,

You are a wealth of information.

But I still want to nitpick this, a little anyway.

470 NE @ 2150 fps and a 500 gr. bullet, the muzzle energy is 5131.8 ft-lb and converted to Joules = (5131.8)(1055/778) = 6958 J, as indicated in the CIP table, as the PROOF energy.

At the original load of 2125 fps, the muzzle energy is 5013.1 ft-lb. So apparently the PROOF load is a round with only a 25 fps increase. That ain't much.

They refer to this as EE in the table and as the PROOF kinetic energy which I assume is the proof load and higher pressure (bullet velocity) than the standard load.

For the 450 #2 with a 480 gr, bullet at the "original" velocity of 2175 fps, the muzzle energy is 5041.7 ft-lb. Converted to Joules it is (5041.7)(1055/778) = 6836.8 J, or 303 J less than as listed in the CIP table.

If you go backwards with 7140 J as the proof energy, then for the 480 gr. bullet, the muzzle velocity is 2222.7 fps, or almost a 50 fps increase over the standard load and velocity.

How they figured, or from where they got, this higher bullet velocity and resultant energy as a proof load I do not know.

But at "original" bullet velocities I still do not understand how the operating pressure (PTmax) can be greater for the 450 #2 than for the 470 NE.

I have my doubts about the CIP pressures. But unfortunately, or luckily, I can't prove it.

Thanks for the data.

My confusion on the data I am sure is not my fault but a result of the British pussing-out and going metric!

On the other hand, maybe I am looking at this in the wrong way. PTmax may be listed as the standard maximum operating pressure but actual operating pressures may be less than PTmax, and especially in the case of the 450 No. 2 NE.

The tests that Wright did in his book "Shooting the British Double Rifle" all the peizoelectric transducer pressures for the 470 were below the copper crusher "standard" of 14 tsi or 31,340 psi.

Even at 31,340 psi, this is well below the CIP standard of 2700 bar, or 39,690 psi.

Mystery solved, I hope.

Will,

Looks like you are developing a case of RIP-itis, otherwise known as answering you own questions or conversing with oneself on the forums. Better get that checked out.

Good thing the mystery is solved. Otherwise, we'd have to get in to just who this Joules guy is and what he was before he converted. Was he a buddy of John Taylor's?

I think Joules was actually some butler living in London who name was Jeeves, but was forced to change his name to some French crap when the British went metric.

LC is just bait and switching you to spend more money...I would go with Heym and tell them to bugger off....

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
I'll admit that the old copper crusher method of pressure measurement may not be a true indication of actual pressure, but I wonder where you found or CIP determined these "new" pressures.

I'll get to that one later.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
The old stuff:

450/400 3" @ 2150 fps = 16 tons = 35,840 psi.
450 No. 2 = 13 tons = 13 tons = 29, 120 psi
470 = 14 tons = 31,360 psi

Now apparently the CIP is from your post:

450/400 3" @ 2150 fps = 2800 bar = 41,160 psi.
450 No. 2 = 2800 bar = 41,160 psi
470 = 2700 bar = 39,690 psi

The 450/400 pressures are "almost" similar, 10%. Maybe this is the difference between the old copper crusher and the newer peizoelectric pressure measurement methods. And the 470 and 450 #2 are a lot different.

Oh Lord, here we go...

None of the above is correct. Talk about mixing apples and oranges, and you didn't even get the math right.

NO, the original pressure standards in tons and the current pressure standards in BAR are not "similar" in the way that you mean. The the original pressure standard ("tons") and the current pressure standard (BAR; 1 BAR = 14.50375 PSI) are not readily convertible to each other as you have attempted to do, because they're not even measurements of the same thing.

First, the original British standard in "tons" is not CUP. CUP is a measurement (obsolete) of chamber pressure. Although often referred to as "pressure", "tons" is NOT a measurement of chamber pressure. With rifle cartridges, the British didn't bother to measure chamber pressure. Their rifle cartridges were standardized on BOLT THRUST, measured using the Base Copper Units of Pressure yardstick. BaseCUP was calculated by measuring the compression of a copper pellet between the case head and the breech face - an axial measurement - and stated in "tons". You can't measure chamber pressure on the breech face.

CIP standards became law in the UK when they joined CIP in 1980. CIP requires standardization of rifle cartridges based on chamber pressure which, again, the British had never used. Chamber pressure is measured radially - on the chamber sidewall. In the past, outside of Britain, this was done with the now obsolete copper crusher method (with the copper pellet crushed in a piston in the chamber sidewall), and was expressed as CUP. Today, it's done with a piezo electric transducer, expressed in BAR or PSI. CUP and BAR/PSI are not readily convertible.


With respect to standards for British rifle cartridges:

"Tons" (X 2240 = BaseCUP) is bolt thrust.

"BAR" (X 14.50375 = PSI) is chamber pressure.

"CUP" is an obsolete measurement of chamber pressure that is not convertible to BAR or PSI.


Original standards (bolt thrust):

.450/.400 3": 60 Cordite/400 grain bullet = 2,125 fps from a 30" barrel. 16 tons.

.450 No. 2: 80 Cordite/480 grain bullet = 2,175 fps from a 28" barrel. 13 tons.

.470: 75 Cordite/500 grain bullet = 2,125 from a 31" barrel. 14 tons.


Current CIP standards ( chamber pressure):

.450/.400 3": 2800 BAR/40,610 PSI

.450 No. 2: 2800 BAR/40,610 PSI

.470: 2700 BAR/39,160 PSI


And no, the old standards are not a "lot different", in the way that you mean, from the new standards for the .450 No. 2 and the .470.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
I'll admit that the old copper crusher method of pressure measurement may not be a true indication of actual pressure, but I wonder where you found or CIP determined these "new" pressures.

When these conversions were done, the intent wasn't to create "new" standards, but to simply restate the existing standards into the newly legally mandated unit of measurement. Since "tons" and BAR are measurements of different things, the only way to do it was laborious testing, and that's what they did. Cordite ammo was fired in base crusher guns that also had a piezo electric transducer in the chamber sidewall, so that both measurements were taken in the same pressure gun, with the same cartridge, at the same time. The "new" standards are the old standards restated using a different unit of measurement.

quote:

But I don't believe for a second that 450 #2 pressures are going to be greater than for the 470 NE.

The .450 No. 2 has a slightly higher chamber pressure than the .470 - it's a longer but slimmer case that uses 5 grains more cordite. The BaseCUP is slightly lower than the .470's due to the smaller case head.

BTW, you are confused about the proof pressure issue, which is why the math didn't make sense to you. CIP proof is extremely simple. Proof cartridges must produce a mean pressure of 125% (PE) of PTmax. Nobody pays any attention to anything else.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Kinda reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RKKqHay5jY&feature=related

400 Nitro Express,

I do not disagree with anything you have said, but anything I said originally has not really been changed or invalidated by your response.

I admit I blew off the difference between 1 bar (100 kPa, 14.5 psi) and 101.325 kPa (14.696 psi) as you have noted, but it doesn't really change anything.

I answered my own question, in that the CIP standard is just a limit of pressure but does not appear to be indicative of actual operating pressures in typical cartridges. ZThe pressures reported by Wright were indeed sidewall peizo measurements by the Birmingham Proof House.

Bear

Since you are in UK - and if it does not need to be a new rifle - look here:

W. Evans 450/400 ca. 1914 Euro 8,950.-

http://www.egun.de/market/item.php?id=1671957

This gun is in Germany, would grab it myself but have a 500/416 already and am looking for a new house.... a shame to let it go.

Cheers, Franz

PS: this is not my rifle nor do I have any relation to the seller...