Here's some data from Hodgdon with pressures listed:

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/rifle/405win.php

-Bob F.

BFaucett,



My rifle runs consistently about 90 to 100 fps slower than the Hodgdon data (reference their data and mine listed above). From communications I have had with two other, 405 Winchester owners, this seems to be the norm, i.e. the Hodgdon data is too fast. Interestingly, an acquaintance with Quickload had found that his simulations match closely to Hodgdon's data, which has caused me to ponder if they actually gathered the data empirically or simply simulated it. Simulation is beau coupe cheaper and faster!



ASS_CLOWN

See post on "Big Bore Forum" entitles 'My Gun Collection'

ASS_CLOWN

Dave Scovill of Handloader magazine has been doing a good bit with the .405 since well before the recent Hornday/Winchester releases.

Since there is such a limited range of bullets available I'm skipping the jacketed bullets and working with cast bullets only. There are no commercially available molds for the .413 bullet needed so I had a mold made by Mountain Molds. This bullet is 350 grains, gas checked, flat nosed and appears to be very accurate. I've only had it out for two load testing sessions, for a total of 150 shots, with two different powders, IMR 4198 and IMR 4895, and need to continue moving up the scale with the IMR 4895. Being such a blunt nosed bullet I doubt this bullet would be of much use beyond 150 yards and from the impact results in our Virginia clay berm this bullet packs plenty of thump at 100 yards.
I'm getting ready to have another mold made, this one being a bit more aerodynamic. I'm still mulling over the nose shape, truncated cone with small flat tip, spitzer with a round nose tip, ????
Any suggestions?

I had not found any data on RL-7 until I read the post above. I'll need to buy an 8 pound jug and see what results I can get with it.
I have had great results with IMR 4064 in the 45-70 and thought I would test this powder in the 405. Any thoughts out there?
Jim

Arkypete-

I've been lusting after one of the .405's - intent of using it for CB's only. Been doing a bit of reading about them and would like to ask you about your .413 dia. CB.

I'd read somewhere else that the chambers were cut tight vs. the bore dia. and that you couldn't chamber rounds with bullets large enough for the bore. Have you run into this? Anything special about getting things to work? I'm also interested in what you did for the 350gr. bullet design and what you're seeing accuracy wise. All the details re: alloy, lube, etc. would be appreciated!

Best regards-

Sky C.

I've not had a problem with chambering. The bullet nose gets engraved into the rifling, as it was designed to do. So far I've used WW with tin and WW with linotype, air cooled. The next iteration with be the same but dropped into water at casting. The lube I'm using may not be available right now, Micro Lube. There has been LBT Blue and Rooster HVR in this sizer so I'll get a little red and a little blue mixed in with the Micro Lube. I've had zero leading, which I attribute to the .413 bullet diameter, the annealed gas check, moderately hard alloy, the bullet lubeand the barrel being as smooth as glass.
The Lyman gas checks are a bit ragged so I may try some of the Hornady 416 checks to see how they work.
I've worked my way through the series of targets using IMR 4198, which is very promising for reduced loads. Now I'm working my way through the IMR 4895 series. Again promising for full charge loads but the recoil gets tiring after 70 or 80 rounds. When I've completed the 4895 series I'll try the RL-7 and move on to IMR 4064. Then once I've gotten the full power loads worked out I'd like to play with some 41 Mag cast bullets and Unique.
I'm not the best shot in the world with buckhorn sights! The windage is usually fine, 2 inches or so, the elevation tends to wander about, between 4 and 6 inches. I'll get nice clusters of shots stacked into two groups of five each, sometimes four and six. I shoot ten shot tests loads anything that shows promise gets re-shoot of twenty.
Jim

Arkypete,



I have the same problem with buckhorn sights you do. I think mine has an appointment with a file.



I used SWAGED DOWN (0.411" and yes that was measured) Speer 350 gr Mag Tips in my 405 on top of 47 grains of Rel 7 for 2080 fps. This was a pretty hot load by the way. You might be able to go a grain higher, but I would be VERY careful.



I have found that IMR3031 works the best, with regard to achieving a maximum SAFE muzzle velocity. In general terms it takes about 3 - 3.5 more grains of IMR3031 to equal the velocity of the Rel 7, however the pressure is a little lower with the IMR3031. IMR4895 provides descent muzzle velocities, but only with HEAVILY compressed loads i.e. 110%+.



Sky C, my rifle has a relatively sloppy chamber. I have actually run a 0.416 " expander ball through my brass to increase my case capacity by ~ 3 grains. After resdizing the first 35% of the case length (so the case will grip a 0.411" diameter bullet) the cartridge slid into the chamber, but with minimal slop. By the way, there was no appreciable increase in muzzle velocity with this approach, WHEN I KEPT THE CHAMBER PRESSURE CONSTANT!



As I think I mentioned before, the ogive of the bullet tends to determine your COL. The Hornady 300 gr FP ogive will hit the rifling before it runs out of magazine box. The 400 grain Woodleigh runs out of magazine box first (so does the SWAGED DOWN (0.411") 350 gr Speer)



ASS_CLOWN

Arkypete & AC-

Thanks for the inputs. I am encouraged to hear that the chambers seem to be sufficiently large to accommodate the larger bullets. I am thinking in terms of CB's only & would like to be able to run bullets at .001" to .002" over groove dia. (minimum) - or as large as the throat will permit.

The accuracy issue... I have & do struggle with factory sights as well though I'm probably more inclined to think my problem is related to the front sights - most of the time a bead of some sort. I can usually do OK for windage but elevation is a challenge. There's an interesting article in "The Accurate Rifle" magazine this month that discusses optimal targets for getting good results with iron sights. Interesting that larger targets can often result in much smaller groups - somehow counter intuitive to my small brain. After reading the article though - seems to make plenty of sense. Targets are something I have experimented with and am convinced that it makes a BIG difference depending on type of sights used.

Anyhow - thanks for the feedback - it's probably coing to cost me!

Best regards-

Sky C.

SkyC,

You are welcome. I just bring myself to hunt with HC bullets. Don't know why really, I will shoot them for target practice primarily because they are cheap, but I cannot justify hunting with a non-deforming bullet. I guess it is somekinda personal idiosyncracy. I wish you the best of luck on your load development. Let us know what you discover, ie share your loads.

Regarding iron sights. I have NEVER been able to place shots consistently with semi or full buckhorn rear sights. Windage isn't the issue for me, it is vertical strings, since I never can put the front bead in the same damned place twice in the grand canyon of a rear groove. In other words I just cannot maintain a consistent sight picture shot to shot; therefore, I don't get consistent groups. For me it is damned frustrating!! I have no problem shooting 2" - 2.5" groups at a 100 yards (if I pay attention and do my part that is) with either peep or express "V" sights. Actually, with the express "V" the issue for accuracy, as least for me, becomes one of the size of the front bead. My stopping rifle has a 0.12" from bead, so as you can imagine, the target is pretty much covered up at 100 yards. In the case of the stopper, I can print about 4" - 5" groups at 100 yards ( under an inch with the scope if I steel myself to recoil off the bench) and about 2" at 50 yards were I can see some of the target again to help center the front bead.

Does any of that make sense?

I will see if I can locate a copy of the "The Accurate Rifle" magazine you site and read that article though. Always interested in hearing other's points of view. Who knows, maybe I just need to learn a different, ie better technique and then I will be able to use those pesky semi buckhorn sights too.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend!

ASS_CLOWN

AC
I have a 30-06 Browning 95. I could not hit a bull in the butt at 10 feet with the buckhorn sights. So while I was getting my Winchester 1886 drilled and tapped for Lyman reciever sight I threw the 95 in for the same with the same sight. Lyman said it could be done as long as the sight was put as far back on the reciever as possible.
My Winchester 95 in 405 has the beautiful color case on the reciever and I'm a little reluctant to drill holes in the beautiful......etc. Tang sights are accurate but a real pain in the lower regions since you can't grip the stock with out pain.
I've proved to my satisfaction using a 375 Whelen and a 45-70, that cast bullets can be used with no degradation of performance. I'll be launching these 350 grain cast bullets some where around 2,000 to 2,100 fps with the accuracy I'm looking for! Hitting a four by four area at 100 meters with iron sights, off the bench.
I've set up regiem for myself where I go to the 300 yard range and shoot at 12 by 12 and 15 by 15 inch gongs, off hand with my 45-70, Winchester 1886. No, I don't hit every time but I do hit with a high degree of frequency using cast bullets. I'm betting that the 405 will be just as accurate with my 350 grain cast bullet, once I get the sighting problem taken care of.
I considering getting another mold made that is less of a blunt nosed, almost wadcutter nose shape. I'm thinking a spitzer nose profile, with a flat point maybe 3/16th inch in size. Again a 350 grain weight, which means I'll have more weight in the body rather then the nose like my current bullet.
I'll get this designed and come back with the specifics. The ballistics of this bullet may not make a toots worth of difference.
Jim

arkypete,

No doubt the cast bullet work fine. As I said I think the problem is more with me and my personal idiosyncracies than the bullets. I have ALWAYS hunted with expanding jacketed bullets and being the jerk I am cannot accept change!

I really wish someone would bring out a 340 - 360 grain jacketed soft point semi-spitzer or flat point for the 0.411" bore. I like the idea of safely getting ~ 2100 fps and this bullet weight can do that in the 405 Win. The 400 grain pills can to, but at hair raising pressures.

Have you any knowledge of the potential of Alliant's new powder Rel 10? If it falls between IMR3031 and IMR4895 it may be the cat's meow. As IMR3031 is a tad too fast, and IMR4895 is just too slow to get optimum velocity. I haven't tried the IMR3031 with a 350 grain pill, at that weight it may be perfect. Rel 7 is still a tad too fast for the 350 grain and too damned fast for the 400 grain. IMR3031 is too fast for the 400 grain pill too, as 50.5 grains is about all you should use (~ 62500 psi) with the 400 grain bullet and your muzzle velocity is running 2030s fps. This is better than Rel 7 which will run 64000+ psi for the same velocity.

ASS_CLOWN

arkypete,

This is my latest attempt. It is a 400 grain Woodleigh soft point which has been cut down to 1.130" achieving a weight of 370 grains with a 0.340" meplat. This is the maximum meplat diameter that my rifle will feed without significant modification.

The cartridge overall length is limited to 3.09", which places the bullet 0.030" off of the riflings.

Using data collected off of the 400 grain bullets and IMR3031, my calculations indicate that I should be able to get a muzzle velocity of between 2050 and 2130 fps with chamber pressures between 59000 and 61800 psi. The actual prediction is that 50 grains of IMR3031 will yield a muzzle velocity of 2051 fps and and 52 grains of IMR3031 will yield a muzzle of 2133 fps (chamber pressure ~ 61800 psi for the latter load).

I have modified several bullets and will get out one of these days and see what happens. I will specifically test 48 gr, 49 gr, 50 gr, and 51gr of IMR3031, using CCI250 primers, and these modified bullets.

Personally, I think these will work very well. The down side is the degree of work I have to put into them to get what I want, but that is half the fun.

Anyway, here is a picture of a loaded cartridge (COL 3.09") head-on shot of a modified bullet (jacket ~ 0.06"), a profile shot of another modified bullet, and a stock 400 grain Woodleigh. Actually all these bullets have second cannelures cut into the shanks for use as 400 grain loads in the 405. Cutting these bullets down to 370 grains allows the use of the stock cannelure, but only BARELY!



ASS_CLOWN

AC,
Check North Fork's inventory. Mike Brady made a run of 360 grain semi-spitzer bullets .411".
http://www.northforkbullets.com/411-360.htm

I've contemplated getting Corbin to make a 405 swaging die set. What I'd like to see done is a .411 body, that part inside case and a .406 diameter bore riding nose, the .420 that extends beyond the case mouth. With the copper tubing jacket I wonder if it would be possible to taper the thickness of the jacket? Thinner towards the nose of the bullet.

As you mentioned we all have our quirks. I don't like exposed lead on my jacketed bullets. I had thought about some sort of flat point like you made, with the lead being below the jacket mouth. In one of Dave Corbin's books on swaging he used a gas check in the nose of the bullet to close off the hollow point. Sort like Winchester's Silver tip bullets.

Jim

There is an article in the june 2004 issue of Shooting Times magazine with some interesting informaton on this caliber and rifle.

RLI,

Thanks for the tip! I just went through their offerings, and I believe I found something there that will make me happy!

ASS_CLOWN