Printable View
Got the steam shovel fired up for this one:
Still a recommended load?Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Gibson
I've got several pounds of 4831 that needs to be used in "something", don't load for the monster boomers anymore.
The wife's a hardcore quilter--she claims there are over 200 quilts in the house and she's making more, I suspect I could steal a little batting and she'll never miss it.
Any 4831 loads for 150 grain cast boolits? I've got a doozy of a 4 cavity 150 grain mold.
Still a good load for 4831 use. You won't know how "good" until you try it in your rifle.
I've not had any "good" results with lighter weight bullets than 200 gr as by the time you get the 4831 igniting and burning efficiently the velocity is too high [over the RPM Threshold] for any decent accuracy beyond 50 yards.
My wife is a quilter as well. I sew utility bags as well as do some upholstery and repair sewing machines for the quilt group. Keep in mind most batting for quilts is cotton and is fairly compressed. It can still be used if it is 'fluffed' up. It is easier to start with cotton balls if you want to use cotton. Dacron is the synthetic stuff and is normally used for pillows and such. It is also very cheap and does not need to be 'fluffed' before loading a case.
Unless the price on dacron fill material has gone through the roof you can afford to not raid your significant others stash for it.
It is cheap and goes a long ways!
Three44s
Ask you gun.
I too followed the Bob S course when I decided to shoot cast in my M1s. As I recall I settled on an even 40 grains with a SAECO 196 gr boolit. IIRC I decided IMR shot just a bit cleaner than Hogdon.
As for filler, I never used it. Both my 4831 Bob S loads and my more usual Ed Harris 16 gr 2400 loads never indicated a need for any, and that includes rapid fire "from the magazine" shooting. Opinions are all over the place as to the wisdom/safety of using fillers. I will not argue with anyone who uses them, but I just never saw the need personally. Again, that is just MY experience.
Oh, that 16 gr 2400 load is obviously not a Garand load, that's for the '03!
controversial "SEE" effect Beg your pardon. What is this? Sincerely. bruce.
Kapok is a great filler. It is found in old life jackets. Been using for years with reduced powder charges for keeping the charge against the primer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucev
My understanding of it is, after initial primer strike and ignition there is a "secondary" ignition that has the potential to "ring" chambers and do much nasty damage. Usually attributed to very low loading density or the use of a compacted filler. Precision Shooting had a number of articles on it probably 20 years back.
There are others who can expound on it much more eloquently then I can(and probably correct me where I've mis-spoken).
I miss the old Precision Shooting magazine. Good stuff there.
"controversial "SEE" effect Beg your pardon. What is this? Sincerely. bruce."
It is controversial, because it as yet hasn't been able to be replicated in the laboratory. SEE stands for Secondary Explosive Effect. The general view about this is that if you drastically reduce a load of slow burning powder so that there's a considerable air space inside the cartridge case, the powder charge can initiate a detonation rather than a normal combustion. There are lots of theory's about how and why this can occur. (internal shock waves, etc.) Having studied how primers used in liquid propellant artillery cause a cavity to form in the propellant, and how these cavities effect both range and velocity, I can tell you that sometimes some pretty weird things can happen in internal ballistics. However, the SEE effect has not been able to be reproduced in the laboratory, so some folks have expressed that this effect doesn't actually exist. I'm not going to take sides in that argument: as far as I am concerned, using reduced charges of slow or magnum powder in a large cartridge cases is just bad practice for other reasons: poor load density and inadequate pressure build up to facilitate good combustion usually leads to poor accuracy and extreme velocity spreads. One of the advantages of reloading ammo is that you can make cartridges that are better, more accurate, and better suited for your firearm. Why would someone choose components that make ammo that's worse?
"It is controversial, because it as yet hasn't been able to be replicated in the laboratory."
It was replicated by ballisticians in a "lab" [actually it is incorrect to think ammunition loads are developed in a "laboratory"] many years back. I have, several times posted an article from Handloader magazine published years ago detailing the cause, effect and how to replicate it. I have, on several occasions.
An S.E.E. event does not....let me say that again......does not initiate a detonation. What is created is the bullet essentially becomes a bore obstruction stuck in the leade of the chamber throat caused by the force of the primer explosion and poor ignition of the powder. The powder continues to smolder, then burns normally but the bullet is stuck and before it can get moving again the pressure rises to catastrophic levels. As stated, it can easily be replicated by any reloader, either intentionally or not. A "laboratory" is not needed.
I'm another that's had an excursion, both unintentional and intentional.
Thanks Larry. That makes perfect sense. SEE is just one of those few topics that I don't spend time arguing about because some people have strong opinions about it. 30 years ago I used to work at the Lawrence Livermore National lab. Certain types of artillery were tested there in conjunction with the Sandia National lab, and there were some problems. The effects of those problems could not be replicated in the lab. Can't discuss the topic further.
I know: comparing rifles to cannons is like comparing apples to oranges, but I'm glad that you were able to figure out what was happening with the rifles.
Cannons are just Large bore Rifles , are they not?