The below is from leversixgun forum

levergun forum below is from this page

malamute
Levergunner 3.0



USA
593 Posts
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 09:47:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gist of Buck Elliots tests were that the Marlin 336 action (the same action as the 1895 Marlin) failed sooner than the Winchester 94's, the side walls of the receiver bulged outward and the action became impossible to fire. The angle eject Winchester 94 failed sooner than a 1920's Winchester 94, the right side of the receiver wall was noticably stretched in the angle eject gun. The Winchester 92 action lasted longer than any of the other actions used. It was appaerntly due to the locking bolts being in a right angle relationship to the bore, rather than angled as in the 94 Winchester. The 1886 Winchester action also has this same right angle(90 deg) relationship. The model 71 Winchester has angled locking bolts, tending to make the action try to open under stress before the 86 action does. This may be to help with extraction in the tapered bottleneck 348 case, it does not "make the action stronger" as many assume any modification incorporated into the 71 must be.

Buck didn't test to "blowup", he tested with standard 454 loads, the guns failed by becoming unable to fire or function. As pointed out, he didn't use a large enough number of guns to be "scientific" in the results, but the results are interesting nonetheless. He wasn't trying to make a point about any particular action, he was just trying to see what would work to build a 454 on. Some folks are unhappy about the results since they don't support previous opinions, but that's the way it happened.

All of the guns mentioned are entirely strong enough for any facory or even slightly warm loads. The "issue" of which is "stronger" isn't much of an issue unless you plan to go way over standard loads. The 38-55 with fairly warm loads is not a high pressure load. Factories loaded a 1600 fps load for many years, and 1800+ fps was considered a good hunting load for a long time. 2000 fps is approaching or over what some guns may be happy with, but is apparently OK in some guns. I'm not sure what terminal performance is gained with the last 150 to 200 fps tho. Most accounts of guys hunting with the 1800 fps range loads report shooting through most game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PMC does indeed state that their 350gr load is rated at 37,000psi. The problem that I have is believing the corelation between PSI and CUP that is often taken for granted. I have tested the PMC ammo on an M43 and it gives pressures that equate to pressures seen if loads are assembled (according to the Hodgdon manual) to generate ~28 to 29KCUP. I have also dissassembled the PMC ammo and reloaded (with all their components) using the grain weight and powder from my own lot. It again gave velocities and pressures equal to those quoted by Hodgdon as 28KCUP.

I have tested every load in the Hodgdon manual, with the components stated, that is listed at the 28K and 40K pressure level. I do not dispute the findings of either PMC or Hodgdon. I do dispute the assumption of the pressure in one system equating to any specific pressure in another.

I guess the only way I will be convinced is when someone equips a pressure gun with both Piezo and CUP and THEN runs through the full range of pressures. If anyone knows for certain that anyone has done this, I would sure like to hear from them.

FYI, if anyone is concerned with the pressure of the PMC +P+ load, they will certainly be sweating with the Buffalo Bore 350gr load. It generates 10,000 more psi (+P+++++?)than the PMC load. Here again, the BB load DOES equate to the CUP pressures of the top lever loads in the Hodgdon manual.

As to RMillers load, the top load would be just a little hotter than the BB load, using my components, in my rifle. Whatever that's worth.