Bullseye in Rifle Cases

[KCSO]

I disremember where the thread was, but someone was asking about using Bullseye in rifle cases. I said that I prefer Unique as less positional and safer and then I remembered an article in Home Shop Machinist. A fellow turned cases for his 8MM Mauser that had alsmost solid bodies and a neck turned to slip fit his cast bullets and then he could use Bullseye down to 3 grains with no problems and no chance of S E E. I tried this last night with a 30-40 Krag. I turned a case that was chamber fit on the outside and had a long flash hole and enough space for a light charge of powder. 311 hole 1/2 way down the case. Whee Doggies it works! 4.0 of Bullseye and a soupcan bullet and it cuts a ragged hole at 25 yards. I have to deprime with a special tool but I suppose I could carry the 311 hole to the base of the shell and use a 310 tool. I don't think this has much advantage over the old supplemental chambers, but if you have the time and the tools it's a neat project and would turn your highpower into a neat squirrel rifle. I'll bet I'll look like Jed Clampett our shooting squirrels with an infantry Krag!

[Scrounger]

That was Joel Chavez, the thread was " Reloading For .30-30 Single Shot", and the link to the thread is: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...992#post214992
Mr. Chavez wanted some extremely light loads using Bullseye for his 9 year old son.

[Joel Chavez]

That would be me! I thought about that, but had much advise against using BE in rifle cases. I did find several recipes for the 30/30, but again, I needed to consider the source and opted not the thread that route. I did use some Unique and 110gr SP and let me tell you what, it was awesome. My little boy had a great time shooting his new(Topper 158) rifle. A local member is letting me borrow his Lee soupcan mold to try out. I can't wait to try it out. Later.

[leftiye]

KCSO, I made one of those once for a 45-70. It sounded like a .22 short! With 2grains BE and 300 grain Lyman boolits it would penetrate 2 ea. 3/4" boards and dent the third one. Never shot a target with it though. I think you'd be better off staying with a 1/16" primer hole, and keeping the powder close to the boolit. A tempered rod of that size would decap (especially if the primer pocket weren't too tight). I used a 1/4" hole for the powder about 1/2" long then stepped up to boolit diameter.

[35remington]

Opinions do vary about using Bullseye in rifle cases. One who enthusiastically recommends its use in rifles without fillers or reduced capacity cases is Ed Harris.

I haven't used as much of it in rifle cases as Ed, but it works fine in what I've tried. Eight grains in the '06 case is a good small game load with the Soupcan. It does not seem any more position sensitive than Unique or any other fast powder.

[singleshotbuff]

I use 5.0grs of BE in the 8X57mm case with a 00 buck ball. I enlarged the flashholes a bit to minimize case shortening. Not sure of the position sensitivity of BE, so I always elevate the muzzle before I shoot. Makes a good 25 yard plinking and rabbit load. Fairly quiet too.

SSB

[Larry Gibson]

I've been shooting bullseye in rifle cartridges for years. It is slow burning powders that cause SEE. The bullseye loads are for soft cast bullets of light to medium weight at 800 to 1200 fps most often. Cartridges run the gamit from 22 Hornet through 45-70 including the 375H&H. for dead soft lead cast bullets of the heavier type you can get down to 300-500 fps and be pretty quiet about it. Read up on "cat's sneeze" loads. Bullseye is very easy to ignite and is not position sensitive except for extreme angle shooting and then all reduced loads are. For the lower pressure light loads with rimless cartridges reaming the flach holes out will prevent the shoulder being set back by the primer after several firings. I consider Bullseye to be THE powder for these really reduced loads. It is my "go to powder" for them.

Larry Gibson

[Ringer]

I have only been reloading BP for about 3 yrs, and have yet to see the abbreviation SEE used till tonight. Could someone please define SEE. Thanks,
Regards, Ringer

[felix]

A SEE is an abbreviation of "secondary explosion effect". It is a sorta' new term for a "single" powder charge going bananas. Happens under somewhat suspicious circumstances, such as firing twice while the boolit/bullet is either in the barrel or not, or firing via vibration(s) alone. Usually happens when powder ignites properly, and then goes "out", and then is re-ignited by energy waves or renegade heat/sparks. BP, without the exotic support of nitroglycerin or some other "nervous" energy source, will not undergo a SEE condition. BP needs granular proximity for a continuous burn that will not exceed a certain speed under any circumstance. White powder can and will under SEE conditions burn (actually explode) at a rate far exceeding that for which the powder was intended. In this situation, one can say the powder released all of its energy at once, like what a primer does by intention. ... felix

[jonk]

I havne't done it but I've used a lot of Red Dot which is just a tad slower. I'd see no probem with it. Nor do I see the need to make some special nearly solid brass case- but if you have the time, could be fun to do.

[KCSO]

I have to admit that Red Dot is my favorite too. I use 6.5 with the soup can in the Krag for my lightest load and 12.5 with a 190 gr bullet for my medium range target load. The lightest B/E loads work fine at close range but tend to fall apart past 35-40 yards.

[Misfire99]

Hi all. I have been lurking here for awhile and thought I would inject my 2cents worth on this topic.

Many years ago I was shooting pistols next to an old friend that was shooting a 357mag. He had loaded a bunch of 38Spl brass with light target loads. He had a handfull of 357mag brass so he loaded this with the same load as the 38Spl brass. I was standing next to him on the line. He was firing fine then the gun had a strange report and the bullet struck about three feet in front of the line. I looked over at him and he was as white as a sheet. The top strap was gone and the frame was bent so that the barrel was pointing down at the ground. He had had a SEE. I don't remember for sure now but I do think he was shooting Bullseye, I know he used this in his 45. What I thought was amazing was the report of the SEE actually sounded less then a normal report. But it sure blew the you know what out of his pistol. The speculation around the water trough was that the powder had laid along the bottom of the case. When the primer went off it had ignited the front and back of the powder creating two flame fronts in the case. When they met in the middle the pressure shot way up blowing up his pistol. Having been right next to him it sounded like a good theory to me. Now the talk about using Bullseye in a rifle case has me a little worried. I think the special hand turned brass with reduced powder capacity is a great idea, I think I will make some up myself, but I would be scared about using a normal case with Bullseye.

[RU shooter]

heres what bulleseye can do in a 30-06 ,Natl. Ord. 03A3 issue sights first target is near the x ring at 50 yds 6.0 gr load and a non GC 160 lee TL as cast at .311 ,5 rds CTC .640" Attachment 4686


Second group is at 100 yds 10 shots, same rifle, lee 155 .311 no GC, 5.9 gs Bullseye
1.8" CTC!Attachment 4687

Thanks for the advice and load info Mr. Gibson

[shotstring]

I have never used bullseye in a rifle round nor do I use that powder in anything that runs over 1000 fps. I suppose you could, but if I remember the theory correctly, it has more to do with too fast a burn rate for a longer barrel creating an uneven energy level as the bullet travels down the barrel of either a long barreled pistol or revolver or rifle in this case. Accuracy supposedly suffers.
As far as the SEE effect, in a 38 spl case with 2.7 gr of bullseye, you are talking about a whole lot of empty space in that cartridge! Ratio wise, I can't see that a rifle cartridge would be all that different.

[Char-Gar]

Felix.... Help me learn something. In your answer you stated that primers release all of their energy at once.

It is my understanding that "brisance" among other things, refers to the rate at which a compound releases 100% of it's energy. Folks talk about "low brisance" primers which means these primers relase 100% of their energy at a slower rate that other makes.

So, primers, while quick as hell, do relase their energy at varying rates. Is there room for varying rates of energy release in your use of "at once".

How far off base am I? I have often said that this science stuff is not my bag. My mind tends to work best with concepts and trends and not facts, although concepts and trends are often composed of facts. I am a big picture fellow and the bigger the picture, the better I work.

I probably should not be allowed around rifles, as they are far to real for me to deal with.

[felix]

Charles, as they say on TV around here: it's "about time". Language cannot describe an infinite time, nor can it define a zero time, or for that matter, a negative time. The first course in the Calculus, part of another language called math in general, attempts to explain man's way of thinking about something which approaches infinity from any direction, and what happens at some mathematical zero, which is an attempt to define nothing, which is in turn a physical impossibility without employing the concept of creation. So, keeping this philosophy in mind, the terms explode, implode, detonate, et.al., only means an extremely short time for some physical change to take place.

As far as we are concerned, the physical change of matter is the amount of energy released by a state change. The ratio is different for every primer, and its means of excitation. In reality, how "hard" the primer is hit must be included in the amount of "fire power" delivered by the primer. I have no idea what the term "brisance" means, except for possibly the "total" aftermath, which includes waves, sparks, particles, heat, et.al. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Misfire.... There is something wrong with your story. I don't mean to say you are not telling it straight. I mean there is something wrong with your friends interpreation of events.

There have been numerous reports of SEE in the 45 Colt and similiar large sixgun rounds with small amounts of fast powders reported in the pulp gun press.

However the 38 Special/357 magnum is a different breed of cats. Bullseye in small amounts have been standard fare in these rounds since the mind of man rememberth not. Some of these amounts have been so small as to barely shove the bullet out of the muzzle. The extra capacity of the mag. case is not enough to cause this kind of problem.

I don't know what happend to the pistol, but it was something other than what your friends thinks. He made some other kind of mistake at the loading bench.

He has been reading the popular gun press and jumped the gun and blamed the problem on SEE.

I also suspect that what he saw impact a few feet from the pistol was not the bullet but a piece of shrapnel. Did he try and recover what hit the ground to determine it's actual nature?

I would also be curious to know if he loaded this ammo on one of the super duper progressive presses that are so popular these days.

[felix]

Charles, the target load is now 2.9 grains of BE, at least it is on the East Coast. There was a SEE using 2.7 grains back in 1975. Took out a good shooting model 52. I was shooting in the CT state pistol league when it happened, and heard about it the following day. Supposedly, they verified it was not a loading problem over the next several weeks by taking down all loaded ammo from that source. No cartridge was found being short of powder, nor long on powder. In other words, no bridging. Star equipment was used exclusively for this ammo. ... felix

[Char-Gar]

Felix... Oh Felix.. I am glad there are folks like you around. You answered the queston, but in terms that made me hit the books to understand. Next time, think of me as a retarded child you are talking too.

I did look up the term "brisance" and it is exresses the rate at which a compound releases 100% of it's energy.

In the older cast bullet material some writers feel that a "low brisance" primer is just the huckleberry for cast bullet loads. The Reming 9.5 having the lowest brisance, was often recommended.

At the risk of exposing my ignorance (but I don't know any other way to learn), I always figured this means the Remington 9.5 was the " slowest" primer and that had a postive effect on many cast bullet loads. I have used this primer for years and it seems to me, I have found good cast bullet loads easier to find with this primer.

I don't have any data to back this up, just my subjective experience, which may be determined by my expectations.

I am certain you are correct that the primer strike will have an effect on how the primer performs. This factor may cancel the differences in primers, but I don't know.

I truly wish I had spent less time lusting after the girls in my mandatory science classes and more time on the content. NOT!

[Char-Gar]

Felix... I am certain you know that in the aftermath of the kaboom you mentioned the NRA tech folks and H.P. White labs did allot of test on the 2.7/BE load. They determined that the kaboom could not have happend absence a deeply seated bullet or a doubled bullet seated.

I have a copy of those pressure tests, scanned and can send them to you...no wait, I will try and post it here.