This cartridge is in Ken Howell's book on custom cartridges. I'd never heard of it, and I'm curious what were the factory ballistics. Was there a tsi rating published for it? It's a necked down .369 Purdey. Obviously it was meant to be competition to H&H's .30 Super Flanged Mag.

I asked this question a few years back in another forum. It stumped the readers then, so I thought I'd try to find an answer here.

I don't think it was ever loaded. It seems to have been projected in the mid '30s, as that's when the factory drawings were done, but was then abandoned in favor of the .30 Purdey, which was introduced a few years later. I have no idea if any development work was actually done. Other than a 180 grain bullet being specified, I've never seen any load data or ballistics for it.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I shoot the .369 Purdey and aside from Brass issues (which I'm working on with Kynamco) the round is excellent and would be preferred over the .375 H&H fl due to lower operating pressures (read larger case volume).

I can see no reason why a 30-369 Purdey wouldn't be a great round and given the larger case volume - you might get the rifle regulated for higher velocities, if that's what you want.

JW

J.W., regarding brass for the .369, what base diameter does your gun need? The CIP standard calls for a base a trifle smaller than that of the .450-400 3.25", which is annoying. However, a drawing in Ken Howell's book based on an old factory drawing, shows the same base diameter of .545", suggesting one might be able to form it from .450-400 or even .450 brass.

I have been forming cases from .450 Basic as that is what Purdeys recommended and what is working. Use a 4 die set to accomplish this task.

JW

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
J.W., regarding brass for the .369, what base diameter does your gun need? The CIP standard calls for a base a trifle smaller than that of the .450-400 3.25", which is annoying. However, a drawing in Ken Howell's book based on an old factory drawing, shows the same base diameter of .545", suggesting one might be able to form it from .450-400 or even .450 brass.

Yeah, CIP shows a max base diameter of .541", but that's highly suspect, as is often the case with the British cartridges. This is NOT unusual, the current brouhaha over the .450/.400 3" being a good example.

Original drawings for the .369 Purdey from Kynoch show the handwritten notation: ".369 Purdey from .450/.400 3 1/4"", and show a max base diameter of .545", which is of course the same as .450 basic and .450/.400. I'd bet money that the rifles were built to the original standards, not the current CIP.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Thanks for the replies. I've kind of wanted a .369 for some time. It seems .450-400 3.25" brass is easier to come by than .375 Fl. Mag. brass, so I leaned toward the .369 for that reason. I worried about those inconsistencies in dimensions. I wondered if the CIP had set the diameter a smidge smaller because Purdey had actually made the chambers for such ammo, but I gather that is not the case.

Do the reloading die makers use the Kynoch or the CIP standard?

J.W., as for the .369-.30, QuickLOAD hints that it may be too big a case, assuming the same low pressures as the .369 uses. It suggests that for even 180 gn bullets, one would have to use a powder as slow as Re25 to get a full case. That may be why Purdey abandoned it in the '30s, when such slow powders were not available. Of course, with Cordite, you could readily use a lower loading density, and thus a faster powder.

Which brings up a side topic: it would be nice if someone made up a proper Cordite substitute, for handloaders. I imagine double base propellant could be successfully drawn out into the proper length strands.

quote:

the current brouhaha over the .450/.400 3"

I haven't followed that one. Is it the CIP's spec for the base diameter again?

quote:

Do the reloading die makers use the Kynoch or the CIP standard?

J.W., as for the .369-.30, QuickLOAD hints that it may be too big a case, assuming the same low pressures as the .369 uses. It suggests that for even 180 gn bullets, one would have to use a powder as slow as Re25 to get a full case. That may be why Purdey abandoned it in the '30s, when such slow powders were not available. Of course, with Cordite, you could readily use a lower loading density, and thus a faster powder.

Which brings up a side topic: it would be nice if someone made up a proper Cordite substitute, for handloaders. I imagine double base propellant could be successfully drawn out into the proper length strands

I'm not sure which standard is being used, but will inquire with RCBS as they made me the dies for my .369...However, they might not know either as I believe the dies were made from a chamber casting.

Given the plethora of slow-burning stick powders out these days, i.e., Retumbo, 50BMG, RL-25, et al, the 30-369 could IMHO be an easy do...And given the fact that the loading would be for a custom double, one could gain advantage of higher velocities as the rifle would be regulated for whatever loading you might desire...This sounds promising in theory at least for starters.

Cordite subsitute...Yikes, now we're getting out there on the "fringe", if you don't mind me saying so.

Good thread BTW,

JW

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:

quote:

the current brouhaha over the .450/.400 3"

I haven't followed that one. Is it the CIP's spec for the base diameter again?

No, it's the shoulder dimensions this time.

The .450/.400 3" is roughly 110 years old. Except for .001" in bullet diameter (changed in 1913), the standard dimensions have been the same from the beginning. Current CIP dimensional standards are exactly the same as the original British standards, as modified in 1913.

The Germans have now floated a proposal to change the shoulder dimensions at the next CIP summit. They want to push the shoulder forward and increase the shoulder angle. If adopted, this of course means new CIP spec ammo will not chamber in some existing guns with chambers cut tight to original specs.

Why? Let's just say that somebody made up some stuff to the wrong specs and are worried that the stuff won't taste good, even with catsup on it (illegal to sell it if it isn't CIP spec). Soooo..to avoid that, they're willing to tell the British that the British don't know how to read their own specs on a cartridge that the British designed and standardized....and manufactured exclusively for 70 plus years. Takes the cake doesn't it?
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

How much of the "wrong stuff" did this unnamed company make?

One would hope that the first rifle off the line would have been tested by chambering some standard ammo. Like most of do to a new batch or box of ammo before going hunting to make sure it will chamber.

What I heard was that the European reamer provider was the one who boffed the pooch originally.

It does take the cake. Kind of like the time a friend of a friend's wife came home eaarly from work one day and found hubby intimately entwined with another woman in their bed. He almost had her convinced that she was seeing things - "no woman here - what are you talking about"? Yep, ALMOST.

So when is the next CIP summit? And until then, sounds like the 450-400's that were made and are being made are in limbo.

quote:

The Germans have now floated a proposal to change the shoulder dimensions at the next CIP summit. They want to push the shoulder forward and increase the shoulder angle. If adopted, this of course means new CIP spec ammo will not chamber in some existing guns with chambers cut tight to original specs.

Why? Let's just say that somebody made up some stuff to the wrong specs and are worried that the stuff won't taste good, even with catsup on it (illegal to sell it if it isn't CIP spec). Soooo..to avoid that, they're willing to tell the British that the British don't know how to read their own specs on a cartridge that the British designed and standardized....and manufactured exclusively for 70 plus years. Takes the cake doesn't it?

Hmmm, maybe we should show up at the "summit" donning our "SAVE THE 450-400 3" T-shirts...

...Might work!

Is there a site for this organization where we can send letters of protest...

...A petition??

No BS here, wonder if we could "oppose" this?

JW

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Manion:
How much of the "wrong stuff" did this unnamed company make?

I don't know. One would assume quite a bit (at least in terms of cost) for there to be motive for such an extreme step.

quote:

What I heard was that the European reamer provider was the one who boffed the pooch originally.

Yep, that's the rumour.

quote:

So when is the next CIP summit?

Real soon. I think it's sometime in August.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

That is why I am glad my 450/400 is the 3 1/4".

The ORIGINAL 450/400, not some Jeffery, Johnny come lately 3" version.

Sorry, could not resist.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Wemmer:
Is there a site for this organization where we can send letters of protest...

...A petition??

No BS here, wonder if we could "oppose" this?

I've spoken to David Little at Kynoch about it a couple of times recently. I don't think it has much chance of adoption (there's no compelling reason for it), and David is making sure that the Proofmasters have their ducks in a row. Still, there's way too much politics in this stuff anymore.

CIP is headquartered in Liege Belgium and has a webpage - the link seems to be: www.proximedia.com/web/cip.html. I can't seem to find an email in there anywhere, but I can't read much of the site anyway.

The Birmingham Proof House would be a worthwhile contact though. info@gunproof.com
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Cordite substitute...Yikes, now we're getting out there on the "fringe", if you don't mind me saying so.

No, I don't mind a bit. Certainly it is fringe, but when you think about, the Cordite approach had some advantages. The sticks were, as I understand it, available in certain lengths, and to reload, you laid out the number of strands to just fill the space between two bars on a tray (or you could count strands). Then you dropped them in--no powder measure required. The long strands eliminated any need for a filler, even for the low loading densities used in many of the big NE cases. Of course, adjusting for lot variations in the propellant would be a problem. Still, with the renewed interest in the big cases, I wonder if there isn't a market for a propellant better suited to them.

You can, of course, use the slowest modern NC to fill a case, but these probably don't burn completely, leading to some waste and a bit higher recoil. Then again, what's a little powder wasted, given the cost of the brass and bullets.

quote:

The .450/.400 3" is roughly 110 years old.

400 NE, what year did Jeffrey release the 3"? Was it really before 1900? I've long been fascinated that by 1900, there really was no need to develop smokeless cartridges any further, at least for any practical hunting need. Certainly, by 1912 all the bases were covered.

As for the CIP, it's mind boggling that they would even entertain such a suggestion. It's sad really, especially when one considers the CIP seems to try harder than SAAMI to standardize all sorts of odd old cartridges (although that may be to meet European legal requirements).

quote:

Originally posted by asdf:
400 NE, what year did Jeffrey release the 3"? Was it really before 1900?

I've dug into that issue enough to have come to the conclusion that nobody really knows. I've seen several dates offered. The nearest I can come is 1897 - 1900. From trade journals, we know that Jeffery was testing it in 1897, and I've seen Jeffery .400 doubles from 1900.

The actual release dates of a number of the British cartridges seem elusive. Going by the cartridge manufacturers' catalogues isn't very accurate, as some new cartridges were manufactured for several years before Eley or Kynoch picked them up in their catalogues. For example, the .470 (original nomenclature .500/.470 3 1/4" NE) wasn't picked up until 1907, but dates from 1899.
----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:
CIP is headquartered in Liege Belgium and has a webpage - the link seems to be: www.proximedia.com/web/cip.html. I can't seem to find an email in there anywhere, but I can't read much of the site anyway.

The Birmingham Proof House would be a worthwhile contact though. info@gunproof.com
"

The contact tab on the CIP site is at the top- "Renseignements". You'd probably have known that if you had anything nice to say about double rifles made in countries other than the UK...