Well, the shoulder of the Hornady 450/400 3" die is, I hear, about 0.15" further from the base than the new Hornady cartridge, which is close to the CIP spec.

So how is this Hornady die re-sized case going to fit in a tight 450/400 CIP chamber?

Has anyone had any Hornady die re-sizing issues? Like, my re-sized cases won't fit into the rifle chamber? Or, the new ammo fits fine but the re-sized handloads won't fit into a different rifle's chmaber?

Or is that the dirty little secret of the re-sizing die? As long as you don't use the re-sized ammo in a different rifle it doesn't matter if the shoulder is higher than the CIP spec. (?).

To get MAX life out of a cartridge case, you should set your die up for each rifle. Your die should just size the case enough so the case chambers in what ever rifle it will be fired in. This allows the cartridge to headspace on the shoulder, instead of the rim, and that = MAX case life...

Yes, you can size the cases more (push the shoulder back more) so the case will go in any chamber, but case life will be shortened IF that case is then fired in a longer chambered gun.

If you have a chamber that's MAX, and your die won't push the shoulder back far enough for that case to easily chamber, you can just remove a little off the bottom of the die, to allow the die to be turned into the press a little deeper, for more case sizeing.

I hope i explained it all well enough...

DM

You did.


Dutch

Good cartridge, Boddington says one of the best for buffalo.

Bill,
Lots of great replies. I would just resize them so they will go in either barrel and close easily. Keep in mind you may have minor differences between chambers. Just be sure whatever case you pick up will go in either chamber. You could send cases to Redding marked left or right and have a set of dies made for your rifle. They have an optical comparator and could adjust the dies to optimum for your rifle.
Bill

He already has Hornady dies. That's the point. There is no FWIH you are going to size with those dies to enter a CIP spec chamber (~7.5 degree angle and .300" shoulder length). The shoulder angle is completely different than the CIP spec and no amount of fiddling or cutting on the dies will fix that. I know because I'm the one doing the fiddling. Now maybe there is a CIP spec chamber reamer and a different CIP spec die reamer, I don't know. As of now it is basically like sizing a case with an Ackley sizer die to fit a standard chamber, ain't happening. Then again, maybe there is no such thing as a CIP spec chamber i.e. with a .300" long shoulder.

NFMike

Hi Buddy, Glad to see you on the Forum.

I always remember how good that beer tasted after a day of p-dogs in 105 heat

Now get Markie Mark on this topic so he can straighten my ass out. You guys and your frekkin doubles

Marks [400Nitro's] parents live about 43 miles from me on a nearby lake.

I had lunch with them today.
He cooks a great Jamacian Jerk Chicken.

He and his wife are driving back home toward Houston right now.

Next time I come that direction we will have to shoot some more dogs, maybe next July.

quote:

Originally posted by NFMike:
He already has Hornady dies. That's the point. There is no FWIH you are going to size with those dies to enter a CIP spec chamber (~7.5 degree angle and .300" shoulder length). The shoulder angle is completely different than the CIP spec and no amount of fiddling or cutting on the dies will fix that.

Mike:

Trying to figure out how to help, but I'm a little confused as to what you're comparing to what. I'm pretty sure that I understand where the problem is though. I THINK that you're trying to compare dies that are correct current CIP spec to incorrect, superceded CIP specifications (which you describe as "CIP spec chamber"). What you and Will are describing above fits that explanation perfectly.

Current CIP standard .450/.400 3" has a DOUBLE RADIUS shoulder, as opposed to a flat shoulder.

You are aware that CIP corrected errors in the normalized shoulder dimensions for .450/.400 3" NE to restore the original double radius in September, 2007? That DID have the effect of moving the shoulder slightly forward and changing it's shape completely - from a gently sloping, flat shoulder (which was technically never correct) to the original double radius. Here is an old string, with photos to illustrate the change:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...8?r=122105038#122105

I think this has to be the source of your confusion. Disregard if I've misunderstood you.
---------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Mike:

Spoke to Hornady today. The dies going out have the double radius shoulder, and I'm sure you're trying to compare to obsolete drawings. CIP made the correction (restored the double radius shoulder) in September, 2007, but I don't think they've published the updated drawings yet. If you're trying to compare the dimensions of .450/.400 3" cases sized in current Hornady dies with currently available CIP drawings (from 5/15/02), IT WON'T WORK.

Unless you have obtained drawings via e-mail from Hornady, Heym, or other members of the trade involved in recent .450/.400 projects, you don't have correct CIP drawings.

These currently available drawings (it's a bitch to scroll through. Just print page 108):

http://www.intermin.fi/intermi...A/$file/TABIIcal.pdf

...are OBSOLETE.

From memory, comparing the old and new drawings, the shoulder moved forward quite a bit, although the radius eliminates much of the practical difference. Look carefully at the photos of old spec cartridges in the new chamber in the link to the thread I posted previously.

Hope this helps.
-------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Ooops, sorry I didn't see your last post while I was writing. Just ignore the obvious

Thanks Mark

Just curious on a couple points.

The factory ammo and virgin cases appear very close to the 1923 specs especially the .300" long shoulder. Now if that is such a great shape to fit all chambers, why not make their dies to return the fired brass to that shape. I can tell you they won't. That makes me wonder if there is a separate spec for just chambers so that there is never a need to form them back to factory ammo specs. When this project got started, Dave at Pacific said he knew of the Hornady "situation" and what they were going to use for die specs. Well it did make a good match as the chamber and the dies work well together BUT if you ever ran across a chamber that did look like the 1923 drawing, these Hornady dies certainly won't resize them to go back into that chamber.

To be specific, the 2.1" dimension on the 1923 drawing is more like 2.25". The 2.4" dimension is correct but the shorter shoulder makes for a much steeper angle for the shoulder.

I haven't talked to Dave since but I also noticed that he has three different chambering reamers for the 450-400 3". Do you know anything about that and what differences there are between them?

Mike

Hey Mike:

quote:

Originally posted by NFMike:
Just curious on a couple points.

The factory ammo and virgin cases appear very close to the 1923 specs especially the .300" long shoulder. Now if that is such a great shape to fit all chambers, why not make their dies to return the fired brass to that shape. I can tell you they won't.

I dunno. The unfired Hornady stuff I have on hand doesn't look like that at all. They look like the obsolete CIP drawing above. My own dies are old RCBS that have the double radius shoulder. I used a borrowed set of Hornady dies once that worked fine. I'd be surprised if the Hornady dies aren't correct for the current CIP specs, because I know for sure that they made changes when CIP did (Hornady is still holding dies made to the old specs).

quote:

That makes me wonder if there is a separate spec for just chambers so that there is never a need to form them back to factory ammo specs.

No. I'm quite certain I've never seen anything like that in any official drawings.

quote:

When this project got started, Dave at Pacific said he knew of the Hornady "situation" and what they were going to use for die specs. Well it did make a good match as the chamber and the dies work well together BUT if you ever ran across a chamber that did look like the 1923 drawing, these Hornady dies certainly won't resize them to go back into that chamber.

To be specific, the 2.1" dimension on the 1923 drawing is more like 2.25". The 2.4" dimension is correct but the shorter shoulder makes for a much steeper angle for the shoulder.

I wish I could help you specifically with the Hornady dies, but I don't have a current set. Yes, the correct shoulder is actually significantly more abrupt than that of the sloping, straight shoulder of the obsolete drawings. Always has been. These double radius shoulders are hard to measure on a case. I have a Kynoch round from the early '50s in front of me, and have given up.

On the current (corrected) CIP drawings, L1 is 2.17559", and L2 is 2.32283". Yes, that would seem to differ from Kynoch's 1923 drawing, but CIP says that their drawing actually duplicates Kynoch's. Apparently, the difference is that Kynoch's drawings measure L1 and L2 from the beginnings of the radii, while CIP's measure from the actual cutting points of the radii.

Here is the explanation of the president of CIP's Technicians Commission, Mr. Jurgen Ahlborn:

quote:

"The Vienna Proof House reviewed the Hornady ammunition and compared it to the original drawings from the Birmingham proof house of 1923. The Vienna Proof House discovered a mistake that was made 30 years ago when the ammunition was incorporated into the CIP. One used the original English measurements without considering that in the CIP the length L1 and L2 are not determined by the beginning and end of the radius rather by the cutting point. This fact was not always considered by various manufacturers."

"Together with the Proof Houses in Vienna , Suhl and the Triebel company we corrected the data sheet. If you use the measurements and consider the radii that is mentioned in the data sheet but not drawn you can see that this corresponds to the original English drawings. Trials in Birmingham with original chambers and with a chamber made with Treibel tools to the new data sheet show that both Hornady as well as Romey ammunition will load without any difficulties. The affected Proof Houses Birmingham (country of origin), Suhl , Ulm , and Vienna will use the data sheet revision 07-08-01. The ratification of the technical commission is only a matter of form and will occur in the next session."

That's the explanation of the current drawings from the horse's mouth.

quote:

I haven't talked to Dave since but I also noticed that he has three different chambering reamers for the 450-400 3". Do you know anything about that and what differences there are between them?

I think that it just means that two or more of them are wrong. The 1923 date on the Kynoch drawings above doesn't mean much. The cartridge has been the same from the beginning, the only change being that of bullet diameter in 1913. Understand that CIP didn't normalize it until the UK joined CIP in 1980, by which time Kynoch was closed, all of the British flanged nitros were obsolete, and manufacture of centerfire sporting rifle ammunition had ceased entirely in the UK. Consequently, CIP initially made errors on a number of these cartridges. As for "standards" in the US for dies, reamers, etc., I know for sure that a lot it came from fired cases, so there have been a lot of variations in the past.

In shooting up quite a bit of original Cordite ammunition over the years, one observation that sticks is how far the shoulder usually blows forward on the flanged bottlenecks like the .400. Shoulder placement and rim thickness were usually well off max cartridge, providing a fair bit of slop that insured fail-safe function in double rifles, but would have been downright dangerous in rimless magazine rifles. Of course, no thought was given to reloading the case. In today's resurgence of interest in these rifles and cartridges, that bit of wisdom has been lost. New rifles, cartridges, and dies are now much closer to min chamber/max cartridge, and that's not good. I regularly see failures to close with modern ammo. That's the downside of CIP's correction to the shoulder of the .400. The correct shoulder is far more abrupt, and the long sloping shoulder of their original drawings was much more forgiving.

That's the information I have to offer. Clear as mud now?
------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Thanks Mark

Pretty much answered all my questions. I understand all the intricacies of the dimensional measurements but I still find it curious that a set of dies made by a company will not return a fired case to the same shape as the factory ammo. I understand, as you mentioned, that the long slope feeds and functions well. If that were the case, I would think it would be good to also do that for reloaded ammo. The reloads sized in the dies will be much closer the the "newly corrected" chamber dimensions. From that you do loose some of that reliable sloppiness of the long slopeing shoulder. I imagine that if they did so, there would be far more complaints for overworking the brass. I can see it was not an easy choice for them.

In any case, I'm happy with the chamber/die matchup that I have. It sizes enough without oversizing when compared to the chamber.

One other thing I noticed is that the rims of the Hornady cases run from .056 to .062+. This rifle was set at a very tight (not spec) head space so I have to sort through and find the thin ones for use. No real problem as this is not a user, i.e. sporting gun, just for testing. The rims do seem a tad more variable than other rimmed cases I have worked with though. In any particular run of any other rimmed ammo, I would more expect variations to be about half that large.

Thanks again for the explanation.

quote:

This rifle was set at a very tight (not spec) head space so I have to sort through and find the thin ones for use.

Been there, done that with a number of rifles, especially with Jamison brass.

Max rim for the .400 is .065", and mine will swallow that just fine. A friend has a .400 from the same maker that wouldn't close on any over about .062" (IIRC). Deepening the rim seat in the extractors just a touch solved the problem.
-----------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

My 450/400 3 1/4" has fairly tight headspace as it was put back on face right before I boughtr it. It works fine with HDS brass.

I got 40 cases from Bertram [all I could find at the time} and I use them with my 300gr Hawk loads.

Many of them would not allow the gun to close as the rims were a tad too thick.

I hit them a few licks with a file, and then "rubbed" them on an Arkansas stone until they allowed the gun to close properly.

I am aware that it is better to remove rim material fromthe front of the rim, but we were not talking about a lot of difference.
The primer pockets were still ok.

The thing is [not only the 450/400's], that with guns made 50 to 80 years, most of them in small shops, by individuals, that barrel and chamber dimensions can and do vary.

Most all double rifle do not have the exact same dimensions in both their chambers.

I seem to remember somebody had a double rifle where one barrel was .408 and the other was .411.

If the dies you get will not resize the fired brass to fit your gun, then get your dies adjusted.

Then load some ammo, and GO HUNT.

If you find your primer pockets are a little shallow from removing brass from the back of the case just use a primer pocket uniformer tool and it will remove just enough to make the primer pockets the right depth.
I repeat what I said before if your dies aren’t working for you have Redding make a set that are for your tightest chamber. This way everything will fit every time.
Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Cooley:
If you find your primer pockets are a little shallow from removing brass from the back of the case just use a primer pocket uniformer tool and it will remove just enough to make the primer pockets the right depth.
I repeat what I said before if your dies aren’t working for you have Redding make a set that are for your tightest chamber. This way everything will fit every time.
Bill

I thought of taking a piece of wood, bore a proper diameter hole for a 450/400 case.
Run a strip of emery paper on each side or cut a hole to match the case diameter.

Put the case in the hole and grab on to the case neck and twist to remove material from the inside of the case rim. Just a thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Cooley:
If you find your primer pockets are a little shallow from removing brass from the back of the case just use a primer pocket uniformer tool and it will remove just enough to make the primer pockets the right depth.
I repeat what I said before if your dies aren’t working for you have Redding make a set that are for your tightest chamber. This way everything will fit every time.
Bill

I thought of taking a piece of wood, bore a proper diameter hole for a 450/400 case.
Run a strip of emery paper on each side or cut a hole to match the case diameter.

Put the case in the hole and grab on to the case neck and twist to remove material from the inside of the case rim. Just a thought.

That is a good idea. I thought of a posiable inprovement. Use a couple of mill smoth files with smouth sides double back taped to the board. I was mainley addresing the problem of shalow primer pockets for those who take metal of the back of the case.