Interesting Theory On Case Shape

[StarMetal]

This is long so I'll make it in several posts. I think alot of you will be interested in what it says, especially Bass and Felix to mention just two.

What may not be so obvious is what actually happens when a cartridge fires. Here is a simplified
version of the events that occur after the firing pin strikes the primer. First the primer explodes. the
pyrotechnic primer pellet burns very rapidly, increasing hot gases and particles. These still-reaction components stream through the flash hole and into the combustion chamber and thereby
ignite propellant granules that happen to be located near the flash hole. Testing has proven that the
primer does not directly ignite propellant granules that are more than about one half inch forward of
the flash hole. Simultaneously, as granules begin to burn, the entire charge is compressed toward
the front of the case, behind the case shoulder (if any) and the bullet. This compression results from two factors. The primer shock wave hammers into the base of the charge and thereby tranferes momentum, and then the gas generated by inchoate propellant combustion and continuing primer-pellet combustion generates gas pressure which is biased near the flash hole.
First, the bullet creates a gas seal at the front of the case. Second, while the charge is initially porous and permeable to gas flow, such flow is retarded because the conduits are tiny and convoluted, with the entire combustion event completing within about 1/500 second; gas pressure simply does not have time to equalize throughout the charge. Therefore, as burning generates more gas, pressure is progressively biased toward the charge; hence, the unignited propellant mass progressively compresses, thereby plastically deforming the granules. This is a self-supporting reaction; the greater the compression, the harder it becomes for gas to pass into the charge (conduits become ever tinier and ever more convoluted) so that, very soon, the unignited mass is essentiallly impervious to further gas infiltration. Thereafter, no signifcant amount of additional hot gases can infiltrate, subsequently, ignition and combustion can only occura at exposed surfaces. Even while gas can penetrate, because the front of the case is essentially perfectly sealed by the bullet-no bullet movement has yet occurred when this all hapens--insuficient heat can be carried into the charge to result in ignition beyond the first quarter-inch, or less, of the mass that was not directly ignitied by the primer.

CYLINDRICAL VS. BOTTLE-NECKED CASES

Compare the .308 Winchester and the .45-70 Springfield. In each, the primer will ignite about one third of the total charge. Before compression can seal off the rest of the charge, secondary ignition into the rearward surface of the unignitioned mass will penetrate sufficiently so that perhaps another one-sixth of the initial total will ignite. Hence, about one-half of the charge will be ignited: the remainder will be a more or less solid chunk that is burning only on the rearward face. As chamber pressure continues to build, pressure actiong through the unignited propellant chunk eventually becomes sufficient to begin to force the bullet into the bore. To do so, in the .45-70, all that is required is that the total force of the bullet base (force on base of chunk minus friction between chunk and case walls) exceeds the force required to push the bullet out of the case. Conversely, in the .308, before the bullet can begin to move, pressure must be sufficient to additionally shear a plug through the propellant chunk, which is trapped behind the case shoulder and therefore cannot move en masse. Hence, with a bottlenecked case, generally, pressure at the rear fo the charge will be significantly greater before bullet movement begins; equally, more granules will have ignited (more time will have elapsed since primer ignition). Simultaneously, as shearing develops to create this plug, line-of-sight ignition occurs along the plug perimeter and along the interior of the trapped cylinder. This significantly increases the total area of surface burning, compared to the .45-70 (where the entire mas simply accelerated into the bore while burning only along the rearward face).

Joe
P.S. More to follow in next post.

[StarMetal]

RECOIL: A FUNCTION OF MASS AND ACCELERATION RATE

It is demonstrated that, at least initially, in the .45-70 a considerable amount of propellant accelerates into the bore behind the bullet. In a typical loading this could amount to about 30 grains. Conversely, in the .308, the propellant plug would contain about 10 grains. Equally, energy consumed by the accelerating solid propellant cannot contribute to bullet acceleration; hence, case designs that accelerate less solid propellant into the bore accelerate bullets more efficiently. An understanding fo the above will help one realize why case design matters. For example, consider a very fat and very short .30-caliber bottlenecked case. No such case is readily available, but we could certainly create a case that held just as much propellant as the .308 Winchester but with a propellant column only about one-half inch long. In such a cartrigde, primer ignition will reach the bullet base. In this instance, as pressure becomes sufficient to dislodge the bullet, no solid propellant plug will follow the bullet into the bore. All else being equal, accelerating mass will be minimized. This means that the gun will initially accelerate more slowely into the shooter's shoulder--less felt recoil, less total work will be done on the barrel--less barrel heating and wear, and more work will be done on the bullet--more velocity. Any shooter who has done a side-by-side comparison of otherwise nominally identical guns chambered in .300 Win Mag and .300 WSM will agree that the shorter case generates les felt recoil, despite essentially identical ballistics. This is explained by the fact the .300 WSM accelerates far less unburned propellant into the bore. (We are not breaking Newton's Law here: total recoil may be similar, but the initial rearward gun acceleration will be milder, and that is what the shooter is most sensitive to). So, in general, when considering identical usable case capacities, bottlenecked cases are vastly more efficient then cylindrical cases, and progressiviel shorter bottlenecked cases are progressively more efficient. Modern designs are simply getting closer to the ideal, where the case body is sufficiently short so that very little unignited propellant follows the bullet into the bore.


BARREL LIFE

A complication exists regarding barrel life. Consider the .243 Winchester and the 6mm Remington. The .243 has about four percent less usable case capacity. It also works at a slightly lower pressure. Shoulder angle is also slightly steeper. Each of these characteristics is recognized as being benefical toward increasing barrel life. However, the .243 case neck is significally shorter, which evidently makes all the difference. Ballisticians have long recognized two singificant things when comparing these cases. First, the 6mm is always well behaved--no surprises; conversely, the .243 is notorious for generating unexpected results, including unexplained pressure spikes. Second, inexplicably, the 6mm offers significantly greater barrel life. The only reasonable explanation for the latter (which may also explain the former quandary) is that the long neck of the 6mm somehow protects the barrel throat. I believe this is precisely the situation. I suspect that a long neck saps heat out of the perimeter of the propellant plug (as that plug begins to push the bullet into the bore). If the case neck is long enough, the cool brass can extract enough heat from the plug to quench the burning, at least along the front end.
In this instance, a significant length of unburning propellant follows the bullet into the leade. This would allow the steel at the bore interior to cool slightly, after being heated dramatically by deformation and friction during bullet passage, before it is assailed by the full brunt of the subsequently passing incandescent propellant gases. Conversely, in the .243, the short case neck cannot cool the plug surface sufficiently to quench burning along the perimeter, this means that as the plug passes into the barrel, the exterior is burning. This further heats and corrosively damaged the steel. If this is true, occasional variations in how the plug perimeter continues to burn could explain the pressure spikes and general difficulties that ballisticians routinely report with the .243. Brass absorbs heat 400 times faster thn smokeless powder and several times faster then steel, so cool brass is very effective at delaying ignition and burning of smokeless powder. Cold brass can even extinquish contacting granule surfaces that are already beginning to burn. Whatever the explanation, longer case necks appear to be useful. I believe that these add to barrel life because such a design allows for a short protective plug of unignited propellant to follow the bullet. If this is true, then not only is a long case neck desirable, we also do not want the case to be too short, else not plug would exist.

[9.3X62AL]

I'll need a while to digest this.......GOOD STUFF, though.

[felix]

Very good, Joe. Worthwhile to put up onto the board. Shows that "ignition" is everything that it is. ... felix

[versifier]

Joe,
Great post. I like it when you make me think. :smile:
It certainly makes sense when one considers the greater efficiency, lower percieved recoil, and longer barrel life of cartridges like the PPC's and BR's. If I am understanding you correctly, in theory at least, the logical extension of this in, say, .30 cal, might be a 1-1.5" (to the shoulder) wildcat based maybe on the .50BMG case with a long neck. One might assume that this would give performance on a par with the .30 RUM (or greater possibly) with longer barrel life and less abuse to the shooter's shoulder.

[StarMetal]

Felix,

Glad you enjoyed, I certainly did. Don't know about putting up on the board as I didn't write it. My best friend sent to me by email and I believe it's out of a magazine called Rifle Shooter....so I'm not taking credit for it. I knew when I read it, I learned some interesting stuff and that you and other's would enjoy it. It sure explained some things. I'm now thinking that with a long powder column that the primer DOESN'T move the bullet out of the case. Remember that 243 I told of that didn't fire and when I got home I pulled it down and found the primer went off but the powder didn't light? Well it never moved the bullet.

Anyway I appreciat you thinking I WROTE this.

Joe[smilie=w:

[StarMetal]

Versifier,

I believe you are correct in your assumption. I would imagine there is a point the design wouldn't want to go beyond, but that's the general idea...short and fat, with long neck.

I was particulary interested in how the plug of unburned powder cools things down in addition to the brass cooling the powder burn down also. This, I believe, explains to me why sometimes without a case filler I may get a grey wash in the bore, but then adding just a filler and not changing the load eliminates it. The filler must be cooling down the powder burn.

This also add fuel to the powder still burning and/or sandblasting an already hot bore and eroding it...this is saying with a long powder column the powder burn is cooler because of that plug of unburned powder.

Very interesting ...all of it.

Joe

[felix]

Yes, the longer the case, the longer the powder column, assuming a case full. That's why you can contemplate stronger primers for such a case design. Short cases should be tried with the least forceful primer available first. ... felix

[44man]

After reading this and doing a lot of thinking, I got me a pair of scissors with LONG blades. Now I will have an advantage with my groups.
Actually, that was good. However, I still believe that using the much shorter revolver case with too hot of a primer will move the boolit. Now we have to find a way to test it. Maybe using a case full of cream of wheat instead of powder will show if it really happens. I know a primer alone will move the boolit, but will the cream of wheat absorb the force. UMMM, messy situation to try! Might try it though.
Seems to me that a primer that did not ignite the powder was defective or damaged and could not generate enough fire to light the powder or enough force to move the bullet or the flash hole was blocked. I have found some primers missing the mixture and did not seat them. Most likely the reason I never had a failure to ignite a cartridge. The only other thing to do this is powder that was wet or in some other way degraded so that it would not burn or a primer that was contaminated by oily fingers or such.
It takes very little to ignite powder. We have put layers of paper over the flash hole to retard even mild pistol primers in the 45-70 and never had a failure or indication of a delay. Using very hot primers will control how far up into the powder column the initial flame travels so that more powder is ignited at the start. This is needed when the case is long and holds a lot of powder or is fat and there is a lot of powder along side of the primer flash. Using a mild primer in a large case will blow a lot of powder out of the muzzle and velocity will be reduced, not by the primer, but by the reduced initial burn rate of the powder.
Even in the .44 mag, magnum primers give much higher velocity and more recoil with less muzzle flash. The problem is that accuracy goes south. Reducing the charge to equal the velocity of accurate loads with standard primers does not improve accuracy. Moving up to the .475 with it's fatter case, requires mag primers for accuracy. Again, increasing the charge with standard primers to equal the velocity with mag primers does not improve accuracy.
This is making my head hurt!
Another thought on the long neck, VS the short neck. Does the added friction of the long neck allow the powder burn to start better before releasing the bullet? Does a long bullet sticking down past the shoulder into the powder with a short neck effect the burn? I think there is more to this then we are looking at. I do know I never liked the Winchester calibers and always used Remington with the longer necks.

[fourarmed]

Interesting, but speculative in spots. I have to question some of the statements regarding recoil. The author invokes what "everybody" thinks about what is a very subjective topic. I doubt that anybody's shoulder could detect nuances in an event that lasts only a few milliseconds. If the external ballistics of two rifles of different chamberings are identical - not "virtually the same" - and the mass and ergonomics of the rifles are otherwise identical, I don't think anything but a piezoelectric detector could tell any difference in recoil.

I also wonder about the "plug" business regarding bottleneck cases. I would think that powder might undergo plastic flow at that pressure.

I am still in the camp that doesn't believe that the shape of the case has anything to do with potential bullet speed. (There's no substitute for cubic inches, as the dragracers used to say.) On the other hand, I think there may be something to the notion that accuracy and pressure "spiking" are affected by it. Whether this article accurately explains why, I couldn't say.

[David R]

Combustion chamber design? Ask an auto engine designer. Its everything.

Nice reading, thank you
David

[BeeMan]

Interesting write up. Like Joe, I had a 243 where the primer did not ignite the powder. It was early in my reloading career and I didn't figure out why. The bullet never moved. The powder looked normal but I discarded it anyway.

I've seen the theory that the 243 Win throat life is compromised by the combination of shallow shoulder angle and short neck. As I recall the convergence of the shoulder angle is past the end of the neck. I don't have case drawings handy, but the 6mm Rem geometry supposedly keeps the convergence inside the neck and swirling hot gas doesen't impinge on the throat steel. A brief look at 6mmBR. com shows that several newer 6mm cartridges have sharper shoulders and/or longer necks, compared to the 243.

I have no idea here whether geometry or case neck cooling makes the bigger difference in the 243 vs. 6mm comparison - just offering it for discussion fodder.

BeeMan

[StarMetal]

44man

This wasn't all about primers, it was about case shape and how it affects powder ignition and burning.

fourarmed,

I feel you are wrong about case shape has nothing to do with velocity. They've already proved that with the Winchester short magnums getting the same or more velocity then their bigger counterparts. Anyways I believe it fruitless to try to tell you that a more efficient shape case burns the powder more efficiently.

Also on the recoil I have friend that have both the 300 Win Mag and the 300 WSM and with the same weight bullet the short mag has less felt recoil and that's with a rifle that weighs less because of the shorter action.

Beeman,

My primer that didn't light off my 243 did burn/blow the graphite coating off the powder as the kernels were all yellow. Not all of them had the graphite blowed off, just the ones nearer the flash hole.

Joe

[fourarmed]

We all know that cases with less volume burn powder more efficiently. For example, a .30-'06 requires a little more powder to do what a .308 does, but a .308 can't outrun an '06 without higher pressure. I would be very interested to hear of situations where a smaller volume case has produced greater velocity at the same pressure. I don't think that the short mags actually do that, despite all the smoke and mirrors from the gun magazines. They doubtless have other advantages, but I have yet to see evidence that they are magic.

[fourarmed]

Just happened to run across a discussion of this article on the "Ask the Gun Writers" board on 24-Hour Campfire. The author of the article is not exactly a disinterested observer. Barsness' (aka Mule Deer) take on it is informative.

[scrapcan]

It got me to thinking about some of the long lost case engineering experiments. here are some thoughts for others to ponder.

1) PO Ackley used the steep shoulder angle argument and the increased powder capacity in his designs. It is stated in his design that the steep angle keeps the erosion potential inside the disposable case neck instead of in the non-disposable barrell leade.

2) the 285 OKH which was a front ignition cartridge. It has a flash tube that carried the primer flash to the front of the primer column. Actually the repdecessor to the 7mm-06 or 280. Interesting concept but didn't take off due to complexitites of loading (imagine that). Would this make perceived recoil less due to the pwder not being part of the charge moving down the barrel? Or does it even matter since perceived recoil is based not based solely on projectile and powder weight, but other factors (gun weight, gunstock design, etc). As I recall from dusty chambers of the brain, true recoil is a factor of priming compound weight, powder weight, and projectile weight (my reference point comes from Understanding firearms ballistics by Robert Rinker).

3) what happens to the burn rate of the powder plug once the pressures start to rise? Does it actually initiate the column to burn from pressure alone or does it have to have a burning front? I don't have any idea, but maybe that is an explanation for the the old SEE argument (SORRY I really tried to pose the question without bringing that up, lack of words made me put it in).

Thanks for making the old brain do a little work.

[MTWeatherman]

I would think the following statements not really true or a part of the issue:


"Equally, energy consumed by the accelerating solid propellant cannot contribute to bullet acceleration; hence, case designs that accelerate less solid propellant into the bore accelerate bullets more efficiently."

"No such case is readily available, but we could certainly create a case that held just as much propellant as the .308 Winchester but with a propellant column only about one-half inch long. In such a cartrigde, primer ignition will reach the bullet base. In this instance, as pressure becomes sufficient to dislodge the bullet, no solid propellant plug will follow the bullet into the bore. All else being equal, accelerating mass will be minimized."


The accelerating sold propellant would indeed contribute to bullet acceleration, unless it stopped in the bore before reaching the bullet...and given the developing pressures from ignition near the primer, I would doubt that. When powder is burned, it goes from solid to expanding gas and ash of essentially the same weight. Just because its in the form of a gas...doesn't mean that we've minimized accelerating mass. Some of the mass is converted to heat and light but it is so little its neglibible. If all the mass of that powder were converted to energy the shooter, the rifle, and a good part of the surrounding area would vaporize. The old E=M(C squared) from Einstein. The principle of the atomic bomb.

Yes, recoil is a function of mass and acceleration. However, its not just the acceleration of the bullet...but also the gas. However, all of the powder mass (gas and solid) does not move at the velocity of the bullet since some remains in the barrel. That's why many formulas use 1/2 the powder mass in calculating that recoil.

Put it all together and,to me, the amount of solid propellant accelerated into the bore is a non-issue.

The short magnums should deliver less recoil than the old magnums for the simple reason that they use less powder to develop near identical ballistics (but in general not quite equal) to the older longer cases.

I think the whole issue boils down to ignition...less powder to burn means more uniform ignition. Case design enters into it too...insofar as it improves ignition...no argument there. Short cases put the powder closer to the primer...bottlenecks
would allow pressures to build more and likely for a longer duration since the caliber is smaller than it would be in a straight neck case of the same base design...for equal weight it requires more pressure on a smaller caliber bullet to accelerate it than a larger one. Increased pressure of longer duration means higher temperatures of longer duration and better burning efficiency.

[44man]

MT, Now that was put very nicely and I agree.
Joe, I know it wasn't about primers but the .243 that didn't fire got me into it. I still say you had some pressure without fire and very little of that too. Seems as if the compound burned up before sending fire through the flash hole.
What everyone has said about case design holds some merit. There is still a lot of it that is just theory after all is said and done. I don't hold too much with someone that explains exactly what happens to the powder column on ignition. No one knows and I don't think anyone ever will.
Does the powder compact so tight it forms a solid mass? Does this destroy the granules of powder, turning them to a plastic mass? I hardly think so. Why is every powder made in different shapes, different length rods with different size holes through the middle and with different coatings if it was all going to be mangled into a solid mass? They could save themselves a lot of trouble by making one kind of powder that you poured into the case as a liquid to set up like rocket fuel.
My take on this is that when a smaller amount of fast burning powder is used with a lot of airspace, most is consumed in the case but the powder nearest the bullet pushes the bullet out where some of the remaining powder burns in the bore. With a casefull of slow powder, a great deal of it burns in the bore. The shoulder retards the flow of gas AND powder but does not stop the powder from flowing out behind the bullet. By changing the shoulder angle and /or the diameter of the shoulder the retarding effects can be changed.
Fourarmed, you CAN feel a difference in recoil with a revolver by just changing the primer. I can give you an example; The Hornady magnum loads in standard cases where they stuff an ungodly amount of powder in the case is a good place to start. I was shooting some for a customer trying to sight his 30-06 in. Several shots were mild and felt like normal loads. Others caused the recoil to increase so much I was hit by the scope. No need to say they sprayed the target. This was caused by a change in the burn rate, the same as a primer change can cause.

[hpdrifter]

ya know, if they could come up with a "diesel" powder( where it ignited from just pressure and heat), then all of this would be moot.

[fourarmed]

************************************************** ***********
Fourarmed, you CAN feel a difference in recoil with a revolver by just changing the primer. I can give you an example; The Hornady magnum loads in standard cases where they stuff an ungodly amount of powder in the case is a good place to start. I was shooting some for a customer trying to sight his 30-06 in. Several shots were mild and felt like normal loads. Others caused the recoil to increase so much I was hit by the scope. No need to say they sprayed the target. This was caused by a change in the burn rate, the same as a primer change can cause.
************************************************** **************
44man, I believe the difference in recoil you experienced here was due to large differences in muzzle velocity. Sounds like a bad lot of ammo.

[felix]

Looks like the person doing the sample loadings had no idea of what he was doing. By the amount of once fired factory cases I get from the Remington plant, it would take up to 500 rounds to narrow down the powder amount required for a production run, given the case, primer, powder, and boolit lot. ... felix

[44man]

Fourarmed, that is absolutely true. There IS more velocity with magnum primers as they change the burn rate and position of the burn. The problem with the Hornady magnum loads in standard cases, in my opinion, is the destruction of the powder granules in an uneven way from case to case. By getting different burn rates and positions, recoil and velocity changes. Same thing can happen with regular loads and a primer change.
By the way, the guy had 6 boxes of these shells, 4 different lot numbers and they all did the same thing. From what I have read, if you were to remove all of the powder from the ammo, there is no way to get it back in the case. This CAN'T BE GOOD. How can any powder be compressed this much without changing the characteristics of the powder? This is darn near rocket fuel and should be ignited from the front. I can picture this hard plug jammed into the shoulder, not being able to push out the bullet until it either all burns in the case or breaks up from pressure, if it does. It sounds like the stuff they used with the caseless ammo. I think I will stick to normal stuff!
Now look at the Pyrodex and 777 pellets. They have an initiator coating and a hole through the center of them so the primer flame front can ignite them for the full length. This can act like a loose powder charge. Not real important, sort of like a highly compressed charge of black powder in a straight wall case where the charge can move down the bore behind the boolit. I just can't see using this in a case with a shoulder.
Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. Anyone saying they do is looked upon with suspicion. They must have transparent guns and cases and a fast eye.

[StarMetal]

Gosh....I put this post up as an interesting read. Maybe to shed some light on how powder burns inside a case, why the PPC cases are shaped like they are, why short magnums evolved. Maybe even to try to understand SEE. Gosh you guys have gone off on a tangent.

It would be cool if they had some kind of window to see what happened inside a cartridge and film it with high speed cameras. Kinda like those windows on internak combustion engines, you can see the combustion and what color it is to determine if the air/fuel ratio is correct. Who knows, maybe they do, how else would they know there's a plug of powder hitting the shoulder and even going into the bore?

Joe

[garandsrus]

Hi,

The original magazine article is in the March/April 2006 issue of Rifle Shooter. If anyone would like a complete copy of the article, with pictures, send me a PM.

Here are a couple images from the article:

http://photos.gunloads.com/images/garandsrus/image1.jpg
http://photos.gunloads.com/images/garandsrus/image2.jpg

John

[StarMetal]

I posted the original story word for word and didn't pot the pictures.
I too have the original stories with pictures if anyone wants them. They are PDF files.

Joe

[fourarmed]

************************************************** ********
From what I have read, if you were to remove all of the powder from the ammo, there is no way to get it back in the case. This CAN'T BE GOOD. How can any powder be compressed this much without changing the characteristics of the powder?
************************************************** ********
44man, that is interesting. I have read that heavy compression to achieve advertised velocity, combined with the heat of Africa, is the main reason for early problems with the .458 Winchester.

[lovedogs]

I know this is supposed to be about case shape but I just can't resist commenting on one of 44man's theories. Mag primers aren't always the cause of groups going south. In some cases, yes. But not always. I say it depends on other factors, like which powder, in which case, to mention a few. I have several 44 mags. I always use CCI 350's when using H110 or 296. My Contender Super 14 .44 shoots 240 gr. bullets into groups of about 7/8 in. at 100 yds. My Contender .30-30 (12 in.) shoots 130 & 150 gr. bullets into 3/4 in. groups using H335 and CCI 250's. When I use standard primers the accuracy goes south. If I use standard primers in temps below zero degrees things really get strange. Accuracy is non-existent and velocities, I believe, are low. My Chrony only works down to about 35 degrees so I can't measure at zero, but I know that there is a decrease in velocity as temps drop. I can measure it as temps decrease down to the limits of the Chrony. I feel mag primers are better with certain combos. And I'd say that mag primers in the .44 and .30-30 with the mentioned powders attribute to better accuracy and velocities. The targets and Chrony verify that.

[felix]

OK, Joe, some more inference for your hat. The more square the case design, the more prone it is to a SEE condition. The longer the case, the more prone it is to a SEE condition. The fatter the case, holding the bore diameter constant, the more prone it is to a SEE condition. The sharper the neck angle, the more prone it is to a SEE condition. Long and fat cases, with a very sharp neck angle, present a very nervy situation. One thing I have noticed with the 22/40 (222 ackley), powder speed increases by a half grain easily, perhaps one full grain over the standard 222 case design. One good thing about the Weatherby design is that the rounded corners will tend to break up a wave up to no good. ... felix

[garandsrus]

Starmetal,

Can you post the OPTIMAL DESIGN section of the article? I didn't see it in the first two posts.

John

[StarMetal]

John,

I didn't feel it was important to the post, but you can go ahead and post it if you wish.

Joe

[felix]

Garandsrus, I would be interested in that article section as well. However, we must keep in mind that some of us shoot low volumes of powder, and that scenario will not be described, I bet. Full cases of powder seldom promote a SEE condition. This is because of all of the irregular powder granules busting up all of the micro waves, preventing them from summing up into a large and dangerous one.

I personally think the design on the order of the 22-250 in standard form is ideal design for reduced loads using most any speed of powder. Naturally, the 30-30 is in the same category.

... felix

[44man]

Lovedogs, you are talking Contender without a cylinder gap and boolit jump. I only use standard primers in the .44 and .45 with 296. The force of a mag primer tends to force the boolit from the case before the powder gets going good. Not an issue with a single shot or rifle.
In the revolver, just a slight difference in the amount each boolit moves changes the internal capacity enough from case to case to ruin accuracy. Would not matter if each boolit moved the exact same amount such as contacting the rifling lead.
Those were interesting pictures, it would have been nice if Joe would have put them in at the start.

[felix]

Joe, isn't a full case of powder roughly equivalent to inserting some exhaust gas back into the intake, as in EGR? It seems to me that anything to cool the gasoline flame will do good in keeping auto-ignition in check. ... felix

[StanDahl]

Combustion chamber design? Ask an auto engine designer. Its everything.

Nice reading, thank you
David

Does your chamber have a 'hemi'?

[44man]

All the good ones now have three or more valves and a compression release. More powder can be fed in and when it is all burning good, BANG, the compression release closes.
Hey, that brings up a thought. Whatever happened with the Remington rifles with electric ignition?

[garandsrus]

Here is the Optimum Design section of the article:

OPTIMUM DESIGN
My partner, By Smalley, and I (Superior Ballistics Inc.) have done exhaustive analysis both from first principles and in the laboratory, and have demonstrated that an ideal case design does exist. Such a case has a powder column (behind case shoulder) near 2.1 times bullet diameter and uses an elliptical case shoutder. Patented and protected under the SMc moniker, for any given case volume, these parametric design characteristics provide optimized performance with minimized barrel wear and barrel heating.

To give some idea of the potential advantage, compare the .300 Weatherby Magnum, .30-100 SMc and .30-378 Weatherby Magnum. Peak pressure is essentially identical for all three. Usable capacity is identical for the former two; however, with the best loads, the .30-100 SMc generates 10 percent more velocity than the .300 WM; moreover, it duplicates .30-378 WM performance, despite having 33 percent less usable capacity. The trouble is, no current main¬stream action will handle such a fat case as the .30-100.

Sometimes it seems as though it will be another 150 years before we are able to bring these superior designs to the shooting public, but we are making headway. Through its Custom Shop, Savage is now offering the 5mm-35 SMc. This is a .20-caliber varminting number that does just about anything that the .220 Swift will do and does so without heating the barrel any more than does the .223 Remington. With time, we expect to see more of these optimized chamberings offered. SMc designs up to 6.5mm and possibly 7mm will work through existing actions, but for .30 calibers a larger action is required.

John

[felix]

Electric ignition was voted upon and outlawed by the BR crowd, so Mike Walker (Remington) killed the project. Mike was also one of the leaders within the BR circuit, and he was the first to use the button rifling method. Basically, it was his invention. The first Remington production barrels were done to his specs by Douglas. These barrels were placed as they became available on the Remington factory BR guns first, and the Varmit Specials second. After a certain dollar amount had been sold (market survey), then Remington brought the process back into its own barn. ... felix

[fourarmed]

The author of the article claims that his special shoulder and case shape makes his cartridge equal to the .30-.378 with 33% less case volume? Kind of reminds me of the little propellors you put in your fuel line that increase both horsepower and gas mileage, or the magnets you attach to your water line that soften the water. Makes me button my wallet pocket. A well-known gun writer who posts on 24-hr Campfire said he was sent a rifle and some fire-formed cartridges by the author for testing. Some of the cartridges had primer pockets so expanded that they wouldn't hold a primer.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that all meaningful case development ended with the .30-'06. Suppose a company is developing a load for a cartridge, and they pressure test a large sample of a certain test load. Suppose that the standard deviation of those pressures is 5000 psi, and the SAAMI maximum is 65,000 psi. To be reasonably safe, they are going to load to an average pressure 3 sd below the maximum, or 50,000 psi. If somebody comes up with a case of the same caliber and volume with a convexo-concave hyperbolic paraboloidal teflon-coated shoulder that will reduce the standard deviation in pressure to 3000 psi, then he can load it to an average of 56,000 psi and maintain the same safety margin. He gets a higher velocity safely - AT A HIGHER AVERAGE PRESSURE. No free lunch needed.

[StarMetal]

Fourarmed

I'm not sure about a free lunch, but let's equal this to a car engine, some of these little four banger they have out today can kick the ass of the big steel that Detroit had out in the 60's and 70's... and do it on a smaller cubic inch....and I might add at a lower cylinder pressure. Today compression ratio's hover around 8.5 and about the highest octane you can buy at the pump is 94...mostly 93. Most engines today run on 87 octane. How did the do it if not upping the pressure and fuel consumption (forgot to add that, that's like less power)? I'll tell you, better designed combustion chambers, pistons, valve, intake system, exhaust sysetem, cams...and last but not least computors. No, we're not putting a computor on cartridge...at least not just yet. You just like the old cartridges and are jealous the newer ones kick ass, and do it with less powder and on a smaller action. You speak of higher pressure...well the heck you think got the 308 going...there's no way that little round could equal the 06 in certain loadings without upping the pressure. So if they do up the pressure and it's done safetly, what's your beef?

Joe

[fourarmed]

Joe, you know as well as I do that there's a limit to what even electronics, metallurgy, low friction, efficient combustion, and optimum ignition timing can do. You put a 2 liter engine with all the latest advantages in a 4000 pound vehicle and set it on a dragstrip beside the same vehicle carrying whatever humongous 60's or 70's V-8 that you like (you're a Chevy man, right?), with whatever classical mods and methods of aspiration you prefer, and I 'll bet on cubic inches.

And we're not talking that kind of technology revolution here. Are you really saying that you believe the claim that shoulder shape and case aspect ratio alone can make up for a 33% deficit in case volume? Send those guys your money, and I'll put mine in a 3% CD. Bet mine makes more.

[StarMetal]

fourarmed,

That's not a good comparison, after all we're comparing a new short mag to the old long mag cases. So lets do that in the 1/4 mile, the light short mag cars with hipo 4 bangers, against the old Detroit steel. See who wins.

No I don't believe there's that must percentage gain but the new cases ARE more efficient, and as the benchresters have found out (alot responsible for their development) more accurate too.

Joe

[Bass Ackward]

I have avoided commenting here until I thought about this issue. Seems to me there is a lot of common sence in what is said although the logic backing it can be suspect. Sometimes we can get too scientific. Let me give it to you in old fashion terms.

I have always said that cast is all about ignition, ignition, ignition. Well, the truth is that cast will teach you that the same goes for copper too. Except that there is a wider margin for error because of the increased bullet friction. So we take an old, long magnum case of 80 grains capacity and compare it to a new, short fat magnum case of 70 grains and say one can achieve the velocity of the other without as much powder. Why? Well, one reason is that one case achieves better ignition. So instead of 4831 burning like 7828 under poor ignition, it burns like 4831.

But that is NOT where the enhanced performance comes from. The short cartridge has more barrel travel than a long case in the same barrel length. Try comparing a 300 Mag with a 22" barrel to a 300 Mag with a 24" barrel. Which has more velocity? So comparing a short fat case with a 22" barrel, to a long magnum case that has 23" barrel and the advantage disappears. Move up to a 24" tube and horsepower returns to the biggest horse. But manufacturers want to stay with short tubes so they can keep costs in line. Ala a new super case! So case design merely enhances ignition and burning. Barrel length is still the key to what performance level you get out of any cartridge.

What we as reloaders do with that capability (case capacity) determines what throat wear we add to beyond the norm. There is always a powder that provides peak velocity no matter the cartridge. Once passed that powder in burn rate, velocity drops off because pressure drops off. Cut pressure .... cut heat .... and thus erosion.

If the powder burns faster in a short fat case, then logically, the gases are going to be hotter causing more throat erosion than one that some powder burns out in the bore. That is nothing more than increasing case volume so to speak. The 243 is basically an improved case design. Short neck or no, it will have higher throat pressure than a tapered case like a 6MM because of BETTER ignition. This is tanamount to burning a slower powder. But if you slow the powder speed so ignition of the short fat cast is the same as the tapered case, throat erosion comes back to the norm. Again a longer barrel is needed to take advantage of it. There is no free lunch. Does brass cool a powder colomn? Beats me. But going up in bore diameter always adds volume and thus cuts pressure / throat erosion. We used to call this overbore back in the old days.

If a powder doesn't burn as completely, then it is cooler in the throat. That is the theory to ball powders. We all knew that, didn't we? A longer neck would mean that heat has a longer time to disperse before it hits steel. Does that help? Seems logical. Don't sound like rocket science to me. Just feel the barrel out at the muzzle compared to where the bullet starts and you will see. The farther you get from the heat sourse, the cooler things get.

Is there such a thing as more efficient case design? Sure. If you are stuck producing 22" barrels or want to keep rifle weight down, a short fat case is king. But if you provide the barrel length, you will get more performance from more powder. Simple as that. Regardless of case shape.



Just my .02.

[fourarmed]

Now that we can agree on. If you can cut down on the pressure fluctuations, you can load to a little higher average pressure, and get better accuracy to boot. Ain't progress grand? Have a good weekend.

[StarMetal]

I just knew you feellers would finger this out. Good work boys!

Joe

[44man]

Bass, it's not the gun makers fault with short barrels. The public wasn't buying them. They wanted a 300 mag that could be swung in the brush. Why anyone wanted 500 yd rifles with 22 and 24 inch barrels is beyond me. Look at the 300 Weatherby, it doesn't begin to get effective until the barrel reaches 26 inches but nobody wanted to carry a long rifle.
Now with the short, fat cases with less powder, the barrels can be shorter. It won't be long before hunters will want one in 18".

[JBMauser]

This is very interesting but I can't reconcile the epps .303 or many of the Ackley cartridges. Unless I did not get all of what was said. would not the sharper shoulder of the .303 epps and some of the other improved wildcats make it easier for the powder plug to shear and thus cause less pressure. These cases should plug easily as the powder collumn would be held back by the pressure exerted in a lateral fashion from the nearly flat shoulder. A traditional shoulder would have force in two directions and work like a keystone. Thus more force and more pressure. Or did I get it wrong. JB

[Bass Ackward]

Bass, it's not the gun makers fault with short barrels. The public wasn't buying them. They wanted a 300 mag that could be swung in the brush. Why anyone wanted 500 yd rifles with 22 and 24 inch barrels is beyond me. Look at the 300 Weatherby, it doesn't begin to get effective until the barrel reaches 26 inches but nobody wanted to carry a long rifle.
Now with the short, fat cases with less powder, the barrels can be shorter. It won't be long before hunters will want one in 18".


44man,

Please don't read too much into this. But in a way it is. The American gun industry is notorously stubborn and arrogant about giving people what they want. And they have to sell, sell, sell, to stay in business or become Winchester. Look at twist rates for calibers like 38" twists in 44s. And the trick is to put out something and then pay the mags to push it. Or microgroove rifling? And Wetherby is still in business, so someone wants the edge they provide? A? (little Canadian for you boys up there!)

Is a 22" tube that much more maneuverable or lighter in the woods than a 26"er? 4oz? If a guy is that out of shape, he's got no business in the wild. And if you are that close to a tree, the natural instinct is for you to move to it and use it for a rest. Plus I am sure you know, most places that are that rugged, you will probably be using a lever or handgun anyway that is much faster handling especially with out a 6-24 moon vewier attached.

Think you need more than a 6X scope for hunting? Or a flimsy $6 factory plastic stock is more stable than a $50 wood? Or that there was a burning desire for a whole new round or class of cartridges after 243s and 30-06 started bouncing off deer?

If the gun manufacturers can buy or make short barrels they save money over longer tubes. To the tune of about $20 per every 2" of barrel lopped off. They will cut corners all the time for cost advantages.

How do I know this? Because I get the people that can't buy what they want.

Another wives tale is throat erosion anyway. If you seat your bullet out, there is no difference above 1/2' groups. None. The real damage to accuracy comes from the muzzle where the shorter the barrel, the higher the pressure when the bullet exits. Because gas is lighter than the bullet, it accelerates much faster than the bullet upon exit. High pressure venting causes uneven wear on a crown that is not perfect. Take a barrel that accuracy has dropped off and cut 1/4" off the end and watch it come back. Same throat.

So if you want to make accuracy last longer, you pretty much have three choices. First is to load lower pressure which kills velocity even more than the short barrel. Second, use a larger bore diameter so pressure is lower at the exit because of volume. Or go to a longer barrel. There is no free lunch. Four actually, cut and recrown ever 500 rounds or so.

[44man]

My way of thinking exactly. I hate short barrels on bolt guns and even revolvers. I would be one of those guys that can't find what he wants. I do like a short lever gun because the length matches the cartridge. We have hunters around here that use 300 and 7mm mags for 20 to 50 yd shots on little deer. They buy the shortest barrels they can find. All they wind up with is a glorified 30-06 with more recoil that they are afraid of.
None that I know of have gone to the new short mags yet. Even if a perfect case was chambered I don't know if they would want it, they are not macho. these guys swell with pride when they show their huge 50 yd magnum cartridge to someone. Most hunters are funny people, they are not hunters and SHOOTERS like we are. They put the gun away after season and some might take a shot or two before the next season. We shoot more shots in a day then most hunters shoot in 20 years. Sadly, it makes it hard for a shooter to find what he wants because there are many, many more hunters out there that dictate what a gun maker puts out and can sell fast. Gun makers will only put out what the majority buys and I agree they are guilty of pushing products through the gun rags.
On the other hand, there has been a great surge in new cartridges, better bullets and extremely accurate factory loads plus stronger guns. Just a few short years ago, no one would imagine shooting rifle pressures in a revolver.
We are guilty also! The cowboy action crowd killed the heavy, strong Vaquero. The demand forced Ruger to downsize it instead of making both versions.
The same with archery, the 3D crowd has destroyed the compound bow market for guys that shoot with fingers. You will not find a bow long enough to shoot with fingers anymore. We are forced to use a release if we buy a new bow.
The whole business is market driven. Is this what killed Winchester? People are brainwashed into thinking the 30-30 is no longer good enough for deer, they just HAVE to have a new whiz bang super mag to blow a deer in half or it won't die.
Sorry to get off track again, but it seems to all go together with the new cartridges and the reason why we are seeing so many new ones. I don't think it is really a bad thing, progress you know and finding out more about how they work is to our advantage. Competition is fierce right now for the manufacturers.
You also have to remember that 3/4 of the hunters will not carry a 7# rifle, too heavy. Then some are like me, carry a 12# hawken or a 5-1/2# revolver all day.

[Larry Gibson]

44man,

Please don't read too much into this. But in a way it is. The American gun industry is notorously stubborn and arrogant about giving people what they want. And they have to sell, sell, sell, to stay in business or become Winchester. Look at twist rates for calibers like 38" twists in 44s. And the trick is to put out something and then pay the mags to push it. Or microgroove rifling? And Wetherby is still in business, so someone wants the edge they provide? A? (little Canadian for you boys up there!)

Is a 22" tube that much more maneuverable or lighter in the woods than a 26"er? 4oz? If a guy is that out of shape, he's got no business in the wild. And if you are that close to a tree, the natural instinct is for you to move to it and use it for a rest. Plus I am sure you know, most places that are that rugged, you will probably be using a lever or handgun anyway that is much faster handling especially with out a 6-24 moon vewier attached.

Think you need more than a 6X scope for hunting? Or a flimsy $6 factory plastic stock is more stable than a $50 wood? Or that there was a burning desire for a whole new round or class of cartridges after 243s and 30-06 started bouncing off deer?

If the gun manufacturers can buy or make short barrels they save money over longer tubes. To the tune of about $20 per every 2" of barrel lopped off. They will cut corners all the time for cost advantages.

How do I know this? Because I get the people that can't buy what they want.

Another wives tale is throat erosion anyway. If you seat your bullet out, there is no difference above 1/2' groups. None. The real damage to accuracy comes from the muzzle where the shorter the barrel, the higher the pressure when the bullet exits. Because gas is lighter than the bullet, it accelerates much faster than the bullet upon exit. High pressure venting causes uneven wear on a crown that is not perfect. Take a barrel that accuracy has dropped off and cut 1/4" off the end and watch it come back. Same throat.

So if you want to make accuracy last longer, you pretty much have three choices. First is to load lower pressure which kills velocity even more than the short barrel. Second, use a larger bore diameter so pressure is lower at the exit because of volume. Or go to a longer barrel. There is no free lunch. Four actually, cut and recrown ever 500 rounds or so.

I've not waded into this discussion because I wanted to mull it over and cogitate some. Bass Ackward just expressed my opinion perfectly. Given equal barrel lengths the short magnums produce about 1" barrel length worth of more velocity than their standard magnum counterparts because they effectively have one more inch of barrel. Should be no mystery there regardless of advertising hype. I have shot out .243 and 6mm barrels both using top end loads with 4831. Pressures were probably close to the same. Neither one gave better barrel life. As said; high pressures = throat erosion, it's that simple.

As to short vs long barrels; I've been carrying rifles and carbines (an M60 for a while also) with short barrels and long barrels in some of the densest jungles and forests around the world. The only advantage to the short barrel is when entering or exiting vehicles and then it is mostly a matter of storage in cramped quarters. I have found long 26" barreled rifles to be just as maneuverable as short 16 to 20" barreled rifles. It is a matter of weaponscraft not barrel length. As to ease of carry shooters should pay more attention to balance of a rifle instead of shaving a few ounces of weight. They should also get a correct sling and learn how to use it properly for carrying the rifle.

Speaking of weight, how about shaving 4 ounces off the rifles weight and then putting a 4.5 to whatever power mondo crew served scope on it? I have killed quite a few big game animals with a 3x9 power scope on the rifle. All but 4 of them were killed with the scope on 3X. I also hunted for years with receiver sighted rifles and never felt handicapped. These days I am favoring Scout scopes of 1 1/2 to 3 power or straight power scopes of 2 1/2 or 4 power for big game. I really got to like my EOHtech while in Iraq and may try it (no magnification and a 1 MOA dot).

Anyway I've rambled enough, I agree with Bass Ackwards.

Larry Gibson

[David R]

Stop in a gun shop and see what is for sale used. Lots of short magnums. Wonder why?

[Larry Gibson]

Stop in a gun shop and see what is for sale used. Lots of short magnums. Wonder why?

There’s no wonder about it. It's what the whiz kids at Winchester/US Repeating Arms were hanging their hat on to save them. They, like all manufacturers, make there rifles in runs of a specific type. Those short magnums are what they were last producing and that's what's on the store shelves now.

I think they would have been better putting 24 or 26" barrels on M94AEs in 307 and 356 styled as a M64. I would have one of each and know numerous others who would to. How many 20" barreled M94s did they think they'd continue to sell anyway. They also should have picked up the manufacture of the M92s for cowboy action instead of trying to adapt the M94. There isn’t anyway that a M94 is going to be as smooth or as fast as a M92 or a M94 Marlin. That was another poor concept of the whiz kids and a poorly executed one. I believe the poor 1-38" twist has been mentioned. I also am one who believes the new M70 is better than the pre-64. I have four of the new ones and was looking for the fifth when they stopped making them. The god awful looking plastic stock is a worse turn off than Ruger’s. Both are uglier than a mud fence (might appeal to Glock owners) I'm not opposed to plastic stocks as I have a couple including one of the original Winchester ones but the new Winchester one scares me and I'm not scared of nothin'! They should have stuck to the regular M70 style with plastic stock or wood. Also if one notices during the few years the M70s in standard calibers (.270 and 30-06) with 24" barrels did not stay on dealer shelves long. I looked at a nice '06 with a decent wood stock and 24" stainless barreled action just before I left for Iraq. Was tempted to buy it but thought I'd wait until I returned. Big Mistake! I can't find one now. The whiz kids should have seen what is really selling to multiple gun owners but they didn't and are now unemployed.

Anyway the short magnums are selling now because they are the only M70s available and many think they should have a M70 before they are all gone. Some also think they are good collector’s items. That remains to be seen. Hope they all get lots of brass because I see it drying up in the near future. Back to the subject though. I haven't seen enough benefit of "efficiency" to warrant get and rifle/action that will handle the short mags. Throw in the cost of cases and I REALLY see no benefit. I've seen quite a few groups shot at the range by new owners of these short mags and quite frankly the groups are no better than I see with standard magnum cartridges in the same rifle. Then I haven't convinced myself I need a .300 mag instead of the '06 for deer or elk hunting. Since 95%+ of all big game are killed on the short side of 200 yards all the magnum does is damage more meat. They do not kill any better.

There I go rambling again....

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

Boy...I tell you, you guys are like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Like y'all caught up is some time warp. If you all are so convinced that new and modern isn't any good why don't you buy all the old blackpowder rifles and move to Alaska and basically live like Bullshop, roughing it out a little more then us pampered lower 48. Fine, y'all don't like the short magnums, don't buy one...just don't bad mouth what some else likes alot. If y'all so macho on old guns how come you drive a vehicle with an automatic transmission...and I'll bet over 90 percent of do. I'd bet if a short mag shot mucho feet per second more then it's longer cousin, with less power, and equal pressure, and with less barrel wear...and more accurately...you'd still find an excuse not to want one or see why anyone would because y'all so hung up on the old stuff. Well not me pardner....I don't like living in the past...I like exploring the future..seeing what's ahead...after all that's why God gave us the ability to think....he wanted us to evolve from when he first created us. He'd be thinking what a lot of whiners stuck in the past creatures most of you are. Hell you'd be back in Eden wearing fig leaves and throwing stones.

I could give a bunch of counter reasons for some of the stuff like you're bashing, but whats the sense...two I will give, is that it is too hard wheeling a 26 inch barreled anything around in thick heavy brush, no matter how good a baton twirler Larry is. Gee Larry, I wonder why military rifle barrels got short when they found out they couldn't twirl their batons in tight trench quarters. The other thing is I'd like to see those of your that are in average condition carry a 10 pound rifle hunting for goats or sheep at a 10,000 foot elevation and not wish you had some nice slim lightweigh mountain rifle...and if you don't you're ********ters.

Why don't y'all pitch in some money and buy Winchester and make what you think people should have and we'll see how you do. Don't forget, what most you fellows like in firearms here on this forum is just a very small minute portion of the gun business. I was just telling my son that if I owned Chevrolet (GM really) that I wouldn't make the muscle cars of my teen yrs. He asked why. I said it would only sell to a very very small segment of people.....mainly those my age MAYBE, and some car buffs. The new redesigned again Chevrolet Impala prompted our discussion.

I give up, rant over....I like to see new stuff come out.

Joe

[felix]

Joe, the new Pontiac is more to my liking.

Hand carry guns are ghostly, anyway. They all have cobwebs and are obsolete.
Want fire power? Con a raghead, and give him/her a wired bomb. Need something
to eat? Send the raghead into a zoo. You define the zoo, depending upon your culinary
experience. No available raghead? Study up on your microbes and DNA something that
has the firepower you need for whatever.

Joe, what I have just written is just as stupid as what you have.

This is a hobby board, pure and simple.

felix

[Scrounger]

Atta boy, Joe, you sure know how to spice up the board. I'm glad you're here, not that I'm criticizing Felix in any way. I'm just saying the board is pretty bland without your entusiastic repartee...

[StarMetal]

Art,

Thanks Art....at least I got through to one person.

Felix...what can I say.... Let's see...how about if you fellows can't accept change without belly aching and running the new things down, then y'all missed the boat.

I didn't in anyway mean my previous post to run down anyone particularly, but as a rant to the general populace of the forum..me included.

Would I rush right out and buy the latest short mag if I currently owned an older mag? NO Would I concider a short mag if I had no mag at all in my gunsafe? YES Would I own a rifle with a short barrel? YES...in fact my favorite rifles are Mannlicher and gun safe reflects I have a thing for short barreled rifles. A little rant on short barrel...anyone who hunts with both rifles and handguns, especially handguns, should keep their opinion about short barreled rifles to themselves.

Felix..thanks for demeanering me just because I disrupt the smooth flow of the forum...sorry it's real life here too.

Joe

[Bass Ackward]

Joe,

What is strange is that the argument that a 300 Shortie at 70 grains beats a 300 Mag longie at 80 grains. But the argument years ago was that the 25-06 was much more gun than a 257 AI in the same barrel length when only 4 grains seperates the volumes.

The 257AI has about a half inch of more barrel travel too. And back then the industry tore the Ackley theories to pieces in favor of the "superior tapered" case designs.

But I guess marketing is getting better. More people are starting to belive the line. I still own a 7X57 AI which beats a 280 Remington all to hell. Doesn't it? Well, even if it doesn't it sure smokes the 7MM 08. Right .... Joe?

[StarMetal]

Bass,

I think when they first came out with the short mags they really didn't say they beat the older one all to hell. What they did say is that they were of "magnum power" but in a smaller package including the rifle. Winchester even went as far to say their 22 short mag was better then their 220 Swift. They did get upset and responded to a statement in web blogs that the new 22 short mag would wear barrels out rediculousy fast....and went as far as proving that wrong. That's when I found out (and when they first admitted) that not one 22 WSM left the factory that DIDN'T have a chromed bore and chamber. I don't know who started that these short mags can and would blow the old mag out of the water....wasn't me. The article was just stating how the short mags were a step in the right direction of cartridge efficiency.

Joe

[felix]

Yes, I agree 110 percent that we need spice, but if exuberating emotions come into play, we need a ring with those who know how to participate more or less equally. I vote on Joe and Jump foremost, and then Al to come in and be the equalizer when a winner is becoming apparent. To equal the odds, per se. ... felix

[StarMetal]

Felix,

You read me wrong...those aren't emotions, those are actual sit down logical thinkings. Like Jumptrap I'm not afraid to say what I really think, I don't just go along with the group to just fit in..that would be lying to me.

Larry Gibson,

Before you read what I wrote wrong ....I wasn't flaming you...just using some creative writing to tell you I disagree with your theory on long barrels...as far as handling that is. We're allowed to disagree...aren't we?

Joe

[felix]

Joe, want an example of your emotion? "...just don't bad mouth what some else likes alot". Bad mouth? What's that? What is bad about logical thinkings (in your words)? ... felix

[Scrounger]

Felix, sometimes I agree with Joe, sometimes I don't. When I don't, I have learned there is no point in trying to change his mind, I try to ignore him. If I feel so strongly about it I have to say something, I say it and turn the computer off. It's just venting my feelings and it's not going to change his. Our subjects here aren't about earth shattering events anyway. I leave the big stuff to Bush or Clinton, whoever's on the throne at the moment. Recalling one of George Leonard Herter's more brilliant observations, "The only way to beat a woman (or Joe) is with your hat; Grab it and run...)

[felix]

You're right, I don't like contests of any sort. Never have, Never will, but did not realize this until I was 35 years old. The computer field presented all of the personal challenge I could have ever mustered, and eventually killed my enthuasism for competition shooting, poker, or anything that was fun throughout my college years. However, I did baseball fun all up through that time, but I was never competitive with it. Why, I don't know. Probably because it was a physical outlet. ... felix

[StarMetal]

Felix,

We may be alot more alike then we care to admit. I too don't like contests...but I knew this at a much earlier age then 35. I also would never compete in anything that was a spectator sport. Just don't like folks watching me do something. I realize now I missed out on alot of fun because of that.

Bad mouth? Hmmmm...guess what I meant was not to come up with all this negative stuff about something that I'm sure alot have never had hands on experience with. My friend has a 30 WSM. We both like it alot. Now I'll admit I've never had a 300 Win Mag, but my friend Bill, who owns the 30 WSM has had more then one of them. I asked him what his opinion was between the two, especially FELT recoil. He said the WSM definately had less. While mentioning the 300 Win Mag I've done a little informal survey on it asking all the folks that have owned and SHOT them what they thought about the recoil. They all hands down said for being a 30 caliber the dang things kicked alot more then what they should. Even a few of them sold them because of that.

Gosh, you fellows are making me feel like I'm a bear to deal with, hard to get along with....really I'm not hard to get along with. Guess I"m passionate (as a forum member called me) about things I believe in.

Art,

Off topic but that toilet image you posted reminded me of the new toilet I put in our remodeld bathroom . It's from the Champion line of American Standard. Everything about it is re-engineered. They call it a Super Flusher...and believe me it is. One thing I like about it is that it's high...when you plop down on it, it's not like you are sitting on a Harley Low Rider...and by God you can get up alot easier.

Joe

[Scrounger]

Roger that. Already decided that my next bowl is going to be at least 2 or 3 inches taller. And I don't care what Waksupi says, I like it in the house. Besides, how can you put much stock in what a man says when his Indian name means "Man who smell of sheep".

[StarMetal]

Art,

Well that American Standard Champion line is what you want. I think if you go online you can see where they flush these plastic stool stimulators...boy alot of them too. There's just one thing I don't like about it. When you flush it, it makes a loud clunk mechanical sound because of the way it operates. American Standard told me that if I have ceramic tile on the floor and walls that it amplifies the noise....and I do!! American Standard went the opposite way...they went from the short magnums to the long magnums....to stay on topic. Oh yeah...my friend go those highly toted Toto toilets....said they weren't anygood and that they are very long. He's a pretty tall fellow and said he wish he knew about the American Standard Champion line.

Joe

[trk]

Felt recoil - real recoil.

After the .458WM, .375H&H and .45-70-500 (about 50 rounds max loads one sunny afternoon) I have a different perspective on FELT recoil.

Hmmmm - it was a 'contest' of endurance.

[Larry Gibson]

Felix,

You read me wrong...those aren't emotions, those are actual sit down logical thinkings. Like Jumptrap I'm not afraid to say what I really think, I don't just go along with the group to just fit in..that would be lying to me.

Larry Gibson,

Before you read what I wrote wrong ....I wasn't flaming you...just using some creative writing to tell you I disagree with your theory on long barrels...as far as handling that is. We're allowed to disagree...aren't we?

Joe

Hell Joe, we can disagree all we want. I figure we know each other well enough that you could even call me a few names (you'd have to go real far to find one I haven't been called!). But if you did that I'd only know I was right!

Short barrels have their place it's just that I've found drom practical experience that most of the reasons given aren't the case. As to new vs old, I have quite a few new things. It's just that I don't think "new" is better unless it does something better. I can't really see that the short mags do anything better. Take the .300s; basically the same velocity with the same bullets and the same accuracy. Yes the short mag is about 1" shorter over all and weighs slightly less but I bet it's really not noticeable in the field. Less recoil? I've not noticed any. Should I sell my .300 Win mag and run out and buy the short mag? Will I kill any deer/elk any better with it. The simple answer is; No because I don't have a .300 Win mag. If I need more than my '06 (190 gr SPBT at 2750 fps) I go to my 375 H&H in a M70 stainless.

Actually I own several short barreld rifles. My favorite '06 for hunting has a 20" barrel, I've a M98 with an 18" .308 barrel on it, I shot out a M1A barrel that was 18" and of course I still have my M94 30-30 Carbine I got for my 14th birthday. Oops, forgot to mention the 3 M1 carbines (I'm a fan of the little gun) and also the two Mini14s, 3 ARs and a couple other military types with short barrels.

That's about it, I've enjoyed this thread and all the comments made. I just think Winchester missed the real market is all.

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

Larry,

Well done....I can settle with that last post of yours.....now I'll spent my time trying to thing of a name to call you [smilie=l::kidding:

Joe

[carpetman]

Larry Gibson-----I don't agree with you. I do think you should run out and sell your .300 mag,even though you don't have one. Why so? I don't have one either,and if you can figure a way to sell one I want to know how. I do agree if you need more than a 30-06--a faster .30 aint the answer.

[Bass Ackward]

Bass,

I think when they first came out with the short mags they really didn't say they beat the older one all to hell. What they did say is that they were of "magnum power" but in a smaller package including the rifle. Winchester even went as far to say their 22 short mag was better then their 220 Swift. They did get upset and responded to a statement in web blogs that the new 22 short mag would wear barrels out rediculousy fast....and went as far as proving that wrong. That's when I found out (and when they first admitted) that not one 22 WSM left the factory that DIDN'T have a chromed bore and chamber. I don't know who started that these short mags can and would blow the old mag out of the water....wasn't me. The article was just stating how the short mags were a step in the right direction of cartridge efficiency.

Joe

Joe,

You didn't say that these new cartridges beet everything to hell but you sure missed my points. But you did say that these were "modern" designs and more accurate. These concepts are "NOT" new. The short, sharp shouldered, 300 Savage was brought out in about 1919 I believe. They are just being re-hashed for marketing purposes. Kinda sad when you get right down to it because of what it is saying about our gulability and the eventual future of our industry and sport.

I do have a lightweight mountain rifle. It's a Browning 92. Short barrel too.

You like vehicle analogies. This short cartridge advantage stuff is so miniscule in the advantages it provides it is like taking a pickup and lowering it clear down to the ground and putting in an aluminum block and telling a farmer that actually has to use it for work how much performance and handling is improved. Same thing really. This is the where the firearms industry is heading to spur sales. Don't tell me you are nieve enough to think Winchester just up and decided to close. These cartridges were a last gasp strategy that .... failed to deliver sales.

[Bret4207]

Hmmmm- I read this whole thing a couple times. Above and beyond the temper tantrum, most of it was pretty good. The shoulder angle affecting throat erosion idea has been around for decades. The latest rehash, complete with computer generated drawing explaing the theory, appeared about 3 years ago in a book or magazine I have somewhere around here. Ackley had the same basic idea, and I think it was guys going back to Lylse Kilbourne, and even futher back to the guy that helped developed the Newton line in the 20's. Maybe it was someone else, too many names running around in my head. After seeing the pictures I couldn't help thinking that the radiused shoulder looked very familiar. Huh, 8mm Lebel? Yup. So they are rehashing a 100+ year old idea, albeit with a much shorter powder column. Roy Weatherbys double radius shoulder was another idea on the same lines. Efficency. Maybe yes, maybe no. Modern? Maybe. Depends on your definition. I think we owe more to the powder companies than we mention here, than to some "new" design. The IMR line generated during WW2 did more to boost velocity than any case design. The really modern powders, Lil' Gun jumps to mind, can make a real difference. Look what it does for the 32-20 with it's archaic design. Give the powder guys a few more years and they may develop a powder that burns in such a way that pressures are half of what we have now and cooler to boot. But for now they play with case design and make claims that don't always work out quite the same in the real world.

As for ergonomics, thats another "eye of the beholder" subject. In the real thick stuff or hanging off the side of a mountain anything in your hands is a pain. Where do you draw the line between weight, length and stabilty? It's all opinion. Around here we have the "ATV/tree stand/300Mag/4-16X scope" crowd that still complains about the weight of the gun. Must be awful carrying that 8 lb behemoth up the ladder. I still like the way a longer barrel hangs. But I also like my 3.5 lb 32 S+W Remington #6 for carrying on the trapline. I like my S+W 22 Kit gun even better for that. My 8.5 lb 22-250 is no chore to carry with a sling, and I carry a 9 lb #4 Lee Enfield around just for fun sometimes. It's all opinion.

As to the gun companies, I imagine the Win 94 and 70 will be back shortly. They were making $$$, but the taxes in Connecticut were killing them. Plus I understand the machinery was old and not too efficient. Rumour has it Savage was making some pretty good inroads into the 70's sales, Remington has been ahead of them for years and Ruger is strong too. Add in the CZ's, the Brownings, the Marlin levers, the Mossberg shotguns- Winchester made the decision based on economics. The 70 and 94 will be back when the can make them for alot less than they used to cost. The WSM cartridges weren't a factor in my opinion. These days if you want to sell guns you need 17,20 and 6mm rifles. Thats what sells. If Winchester comes out with something that captures the publics imagination like the 204 Ruger, 17 HMR or the 450 S+W then they'll sell lots of them. Winchester might do better making a '92, a better quality 94 and an upscale 70. Or the corporation may stick with the same wrong ideas that are dragging Lyman down the tubes (in a casters opinion anyway) and cheapen everything even more. Who knows? IMHO the WSM, WSSM, RUM, Lazzeroni type lines will soon be as available as the 22 Jet, 5mm Remington, 222 Mag, 8mm Remington Mag, 9mm Federal, Daisey VL, 220 Weatherby Rocket, 357 Max, 264 Win Mag, 22 Savage Hi-Power.... you name your favorite "has been" cartridge.

[felix]

Yeah, Bret, we need powders that provide more average pressure without peaking out too early, and yet burn completely under a flatter pressure curve. Your Lil'Gun is a good example in the right direction. The disadvantage is that the barrel lengths become more critical for peak accuracy while shooting cast. We want the pressure at the muzzle to be as low as possible. ... felix

[StarMetal]

Tpr Bret,

Not a bad post. One thing I can mention is Winchester revamped their whole gun manufacturing equipment and in fact had THE latest state of art machinery. It wasn't old and worn out. I think...that could be said of Colt though.

Joe

[StarMetal]

Bass,

About the accuracy I did say that, but I really meant to say were the benchrest PPC type cartridges, which in a way, the short mags are trying to imitate for more efficient powder burning. Time will tell with these new short mags, don't forget they are built on run of the mill production rifles. Let's see someone make a built to the hilt target rifle for one like say the 22 WSM.

You know, everyone missed one of the new shortmags that is a pretty neat round and that is the 325 WSM. That's a new round in a not so paid attention too caliber. Without having to go back and look it up I believe it's a 338 caliber. It was explained why Winchester gave it the 325 moniker. I'm also glad Federal stepped up to the plate with their first round the 338 Federal which I feel is a good one. Not exactly a short mag, but then again it sure isn't a long cartridge or long mag.

You know there was a limit to where Winchester could push the short mag too caliber wise. The got the 22, 243, 270, 30...but they knew going bigger wasn't within the realm of that short cases efficiency. Thus the reason for the 325....that, they said, was the limit...and it was riding the edge.

[Larry Gibson]

StarMetal

"You know, everyone missed one of the new shortmags that is a pretty neat round and that is the 325 WSM. That's a new round in a not so paid attention too caliber. Without having to go back and look it up I believe it's a 338 caliber."

I believe the 325 WSM is an 8mm hyped to compete with the .338 mag ballistically. Going off memory here, guess I should look it up.

Larry Gibson

[StarMetal]

Larry,

You are most correct sir. It is a .323...I was going on the statement from Winchester that it was in the same power range as their 338 Win Mag. Thanks

Joe

[Blackwater]

This has been an interesting post, but I guess I'll have to be included in the camp that sees the WSM's, WSSM's and SAUM's as great answers to a question I really can't give much credence to. Maybe the military could use some of the relatively tiny advantages of such ctg. designs, but hunters, and probably most target shooters, will be much better served IMO by not worrying about such minutae, and concentrating on barrel quality and consistency, chambering, throating, and bedding, then make sure the bullet's a good one, the load's right, and that it too is straight and that headspace is as tight as possible for the type of shooting done.

With all the primers, powders and bullets we have these days, and the quality of the barrels we generally have, we're really in the Golden Age of Shooting, and there's no point in dismissing such things as have been discussed here. As yet, though, I think we still need to keep our eyes on the prize, and that prize is always going to be accuracy, and that, for now, comes more from care in rifle and ammo assembly than from such theoretical and/or real matters as case shape. Maybe it'll lead to even better stuff, but ... just not yet, IMO.

Shooting is a process, and processes don't really have an ending. It's really reassuring, if you think about it, that we're down to such fine points as case shape affecting ignition. Maybe we WILL finally get that .000" group, and I'll be the LAST to demean such a feat, or its significance to us hunters and casual shooters. After all, if we're not striving to move forward, we're usually backin' up!

Just don't think I'm ready to give my '03's the boot just yet, military chambers and barrels and all. :)

[castalott]

A few have hit around something I expect someday...a buffered powder. It would burn to a certain pressure and then no higher. Of course it would have to burn longer to get the necessary power....The pressure spike would flatten out. ( This is the same idea as the 'buffered acid" from my memory of years ago. )

We all expect progress. I like progress in firearms and ammo. I also like and appreciate something that has been proven for years and years in the most demanding conditions.

I also appreciate the economics....The performance advantage of a new rifle ( and the expense of new brass) would have to be significient to justify the investment.

And finally, the user enters into the picture.... I doubt that I have the skill to appreciate the advantage of either of the 300 mags (long or short) over the 30-06.

[44man]

One caliber that will always hold a special place in my heart is the .300 Weatherby. I bought one so many years ago I won't admit it. (Paid $300 for it and it was a special order.) I got the "B" barrel, 26" and heavier then the sporter. I bedded the action and floated the barrel even though Weatherby did not recommend doing it.
When it came to loading for it, I found too much bullet runout so I sent the size die back to Redding to alter it. The radiused shoulder is prone to this problem. I then could keep runout way under .002". I had surplus 4831 and started at 82 gr's and worked up to 88 gr's. I shot five of each load from prone with one sandbag at 100 yd's. Not one single five shot group was over 1/2" all the way to max loading for that powder. (I used to measure from the outside of the holes, not center to center and none were over 1/2".) So we are talking around 3/16" center to center. I was using the Hornady 150 gr spire point.
It was easy to put gallon cans of water from 200 to 500 yd's and blow up all of them with one shot. My best shot was hitting a woodchuck in the head at 550 yd's from sitting with my elbows on my knees. The grass was too high to shoot prone.
I don't think any of these modern cartridges will ever take anything away from that Weatherby. Sadly I sold it to buy archery equipment. I was only making $2.00 an hour.
My next best gun was a pre 64 Winchester model 70 in 220 Swift with a Balvar 24 scope. I used to sight it at 350 yd's and I killed chucks to past 600 yd's with it. My best 5 shot group was 1/4" at 350 yd's. Then A Remington .222 that would group into 1/2" at 200 yd's. I also had a Marlin 39A that would shoot 3/4" groups at 100 yd's.
So with all of this new stuff and guns that are supposed to be more accurate today, all I can say is SHOW ME!
I have a Swedish Mauser that holds 1/2" at 100 yd's and the bore is pitted. Have we really advanced any?
I would trade all of the guns I have now to get back those old ones.

[Bass Ackward]

The big thing I need to clear up is that a lot of my comments are dual bullet based. Even when I am mentioning one point, my mind is actually referencing another. From that standpoint, and this is a cast bullet board, the need for a high volume, short, fat, case to improve ignition almost works against all three cast scenarios.

A fat case is going to have more radius distance from the flash hole to where gravity settles the powder. And a straight side would mean that ultra fast (pistol type) powders might not be exposed to the flame without much larger amounts of powder or filler. We know that case volume, while desireable for one material bullet, limits options on the other. Improving ignition is always going to result in a faster, steeper, spike. A negative for higher velocity cast because it puts more / faster pressure on a bullets base. Which is why some of those inefficient, straight sided cases are looked at as cast bullet calibers.

Bottom line is that none of these "new" case designs of late do anything to facilitate the use of cast bullets. Not that I ever expected them to, but for every new caliber, competition increases for ol faithful, which loses sales. You don't have to look very hard to see what happens to brass prices and availability when that happens.

[scrapcan]

I posted long ago on this topic about the idea not being new. If we look at a lot of things that become new hipe, it is not new. What we can say is that it is improving on ideas that exist. Not always the case as seen in #3 that follows.

The improvement can take a couple of forms. 1) it can be new design based on tested concepts (i.e. the new case head of the WSM) 2) improvements to existing designs (laseroni, dakota, RUM, Ackley's, etc), or 3) totally new concept and design (this requires a paradigm shift and success bears on careful research and reporting, i.e. nuclear power).

I can tell you that a smaller package can be nice, but if you are confident with a larger package it may serve you just aswell. Case in point, I humped a 13.5 pound mauser in 7mm-06 Ackley this last deer season. I did so for two reasons. One I know what to expect from it ( shooting distance, trajectory, etc). Second reason was based on number 1. I was guiding two friends who have never hunted open country and wanted to make damn sure I could knock down the animal if a mistake was made. Would a new rifle have done it, yes I think it would have. But to me it is not the vanity of pulling out a big round that means something, but the being able to humanely kill that animal. I would not have had the confidence with a new rifle unless given ample time to prove it to myself.

so what does all that mean? Some of it is rambling. Some of it is a commentary on marketing. I think the ideas behind the new cases is not new at all, it is just a little better marketing. The marketing campaign was surely successful even if sales were not. History will tell us how much effect the new design or improvement actually has.

So to end my rant I will use the follwing quote which I can never seem to give proper citation. Forge ahead but don't forget the past, or you will be doomed to repeat it.

[felix]

Manleyjt, your post bring to mind that everytime I take a gun out, for any reason, such as a new lube formulation, new boolit, new powder, etc, I know that deep down all I am doing is repeating the past, i.e., re-inventing the wheel. Probably the most earth shattering improvement done in the last 20 years or so was the design of a great, non-electronic, trigger. It's the Arnold Jewell design, a fully adjustable jewel at that. ... felix

[Scrounger]

My first excursion into this subject. One benefit I can see from bigger cases is that it allows one to equal the performance of a smaller case, but at lower pressure. One scenario comes to mind. I like to fool around with Contenders. At one time I gave a lot of thought to getting a barrel in 7 TCU. Then I convinced myself that while I really liked the neat case, the 7/30 Waters would equal or surpass its performance, and at a lower pressure, which is a big consideration in shooting cast bullets. Eventually I realized that .30-30 would do anything either of those cartridges would do, and more. I also love the 7.62X39 case and want/wanted a barrel in that caliber, but once again my .30/30 barrel is an actual superior performer and lower pressure too boot, for cast bullet considerations. That barrel has also kept me from ordering a barrel for the .30 Carbine round. Quite a versatel round, isn't it.

[swheeler]

Art; hard to beat the old thutty-thutty. That was the big game rifle I cut my teeth on, we had two in the house a 94 Win and a Stevens 840?, I always tried to beat my brother to the winchester- but nomatter which one you grabbed there was always plenty of meat for the pot. Thats also the first cartridge I ever loaded for, surplus Ball-c or BB Ball, and a Lee hand loader- man things were simple in the good old days!

[Bret4207]

I think Castalot hit the point many of us stick with- While we appreciate the new, we know we can depend on the proven performers. Sometimes something new for the sake of new is nice and sometimes it's just an expensive dalliance, like this waitress I knew once.........

[Scrounger]

I think Castalot hit the point many of us stick with- While we appreciate the new, we know we can depend on the proven performers. Sometimes something new for the sake of new is nice and sometimes it's just an expensive dalliance, [SIZE=3]]like this waitress I knew once........]SIZE].

Is this another sheep story?

[castalott]

We often want to buy things that we percieve will give us an advantage....We are always hoping for "rainbow stew with a silver spoon...underneath a sky of blue"....But the machine isn't usually the problem. It's the operator. How a rifle fits and feels..how it holds ( steady and comfortable) means a lot to me.

I would also daresay that anyone who could utilize the advantage of one cartridge over another would be **** tough with the lesser one too!

Jeff Cooper ( I think) said it best..." Money can't buy you accuracy...only a rifle capable of it."

Dale

[BAGTIC]

ya know, if they could come up with a "diesel" powder( where it ignited from just pressure and heat), then all of this would be moot.

They did come up with a compression ignited (diesel?) propellant/ It was the Daisy V/L.

[floodgate]

They did come up with a compression ignited (diesel?) propellant/ It was the Daisy V/L.

BAGTIC: Not exactly. As I reckemember it, the Daisy system started out as a spring-piston airgun, which compressed and heated the air, then jetted it against the plasticized propellent for ignition. Like those Diesel systems that build heat in the intake air from compression, then inject the fuel, only the other way 'round. It's actually an old idea; I've read somwhere that Saml Colt tinkered with such an ignition system (with black powder) back in the 1840's or '50's.

floodgate

[BAGTIC]

Fourarmed

I'm not sure about a free lunch, but let's equal this to a car engine, some of these little four banger they have out today can kick the ass of the big steel that Detroit had out in the 60's and 70's... and do it on a smaller cubic inch....and I might add at a lower cylinder pressure. Today compression ratio's hover around 8.5 and about the highest octane you can buy at the pump is 94...mostly 93. Most engines today run on 87 octane. How did the do it if not upping the pressure and fuel consumption (forgot to add that, that's like less power)? I'll tell you, better designed combustion chambers, pistons, valve, intake system, exhaust sysetem, cams...and last but not least computors. ? Joe


Not to mention higher rpm.

[BAGTIC]

The problem with these so called studies is that they study one case, one bullet, one powder. What is optimum for one is not optimum for the others.

Assuming the same caliber and bullets the most important consideration is still the ratio between chamber volume and bore area. It is simply easier to shove the same volume of gas through a large hole than through a small hole.

Another reason some of the very short magnums may have slightly more velocity that standard 'long' cartridges of the same volume is that the shorter C.O.L. results in longer bullet travel (expansion ratio).

My personal opinion is that there isn't enough difference to matter either way.

Same for the argument that short cartridges make for lighter guns because they require shorter actions. They also require larger diameter actions and barrels and produce greater bolt thrust.

[shooter93]

Bill Calfee did an article for Precision Shooting an month or so ago on case design which is very interesting too. There was also an article done in the same magaxine a number of years ago on Turbulence point...keeping it inside the neck to greatly stop the sandblasting effect which makes a great deal of sense and is verifiable with a bore scope quite easily. No one degree of angle is necessarliy the best...just so the TP is still inside the case neck and not outside it.

[Bullshop]

So could that mean there really was something to the Herters ram mag sholder? I thought it was just more Herters hooey. Anybody ever seen one? I have an old Herters load book and of cource they show the Herters ram mag cartridges beating out everything else. For anyone not knowing what I am refering to a Herters ram mag sholder looks like a Weatherby sholder on top of a Weatherby sholder. Kind of a double double radious.
BIC/BS

[HollandNut]

I'll keep my long and fat cases like the 375 Holland , 458 Lott , and NE rounds , thank you very much ..
It's all very interesting and I think a simpler way of stating the case for the bottleneck , is the venturi effect , where you go from a large pipe to a smaller one , pressure's going up , has to ...
The WSM's and their kind are fancy marketing ideas , true it has been known for years a short fat column is more efficient than a skinny long one .. But in real life it's a moot point ..
I agree with the comment about the lighter rifle , what four ounces , lets be real here ..
I wonder about all the powder and what its doing during this time .. I doubt anyone will ever know beyond some interesting guesstimations , as to whats going on .. If it's doing all these things , then why do we need 150~ powders with different burn rates and characteristics ..
Interesting point too , is the author has apparently "invented" the perfect case , and patented it so no one can copy it ..
HHMM ..

[looseprojectile]

jumping in here when the topic was ignition.
I'm old and have now seen most of the "NEW" stuff related to shooting, but one thing keeps ratling around in my head. I think it was E.K. himself that suggested if you think you might not be getting complete ignition you might try dropping a primer in on top of the powder. I thought at the time that it was pretty ridiculous to think you could need something like that. Then there were bigger cases and slower powders and and and.
By the way, you guys have entertained me for a long time tonight and the wife has enjoyed it also. Kept me from hogging the TV remote.:drinks: :castmine:
Life is good

[leftiye]

What I want to know is what happened to the fact that powder will impact detonate? Sounds to me like the pressure, heat, shock thing would get bad enough to cause the "chunk of compressed powder" Starmetal describes to go up without any direct flame. If a blow to a bullet stuck in a chamber (via a hammer with a rod down the barrel) can detonate a charge of powder(no primer involved), how could it be possible that 4000 degrees and 50000 psi couldn't ignite the powder (I'm tempted to add - no matter how slow burning the powder was)?

As for the small fat case, bigger longer case thing, Powley probably had it right,- pressure, pressure curve, expansion ratio. Smaller cases may have a bit more expansion ratio, but they usually don't out perform bigger cases without (sometimes radically) higher pressures (whether they're fat or not).

[Bret4207]

Bill Calfee did an article for Precision Shooting an month or so ago on case design which is very interesting too. There was also an article done in the same magaxine a number of years ago on Turbulence point...keeping it inside the neck to greatly stop the sandblasting effect which makes a great deal of sense and is verifiable with a bore scope quite easily. No one degree of angle is necessarliy the best...just so the TP is still inside the case neck and not outside it.

That turbulence article was the one I referred to 2-3 pages back. This was one of the better discussions we had. Much of this is over my head and up into Felix territory. I still don't know what conclusions to draw from this, other than a non-magnum belted monster masher type of guy like me won't see the effects of some of this for a very long time,. if ever. :drinks:

[mtnman31]

An interesting thread.

Off topic, but why is the originator of the thread, Starmetal, banned from the site? I am curious as to what a member has to do to get banned, other than rip off someone in the swappin' and selling section. :confused:

[45nut]

He is gone due to several reasons. You can accept that at face value from me or you can seek more answers elsewhere.