Lee PrecisionWidenersMidSouth Shooters SupplyTitan Reloading
Inline FabricationGraf & SonsStainLess Steel MediaRotoMetals2
Repackbox
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Research Press Journal

  1. #1

    Research Press Journal

    Research Press Journal – Issue 4, Autumn 2018. (40 pages) Free pdf download.

    New edition of my free to download Journal includes a contemporary look at European military rifles of 1886 and a report from 1875 documenting NRA trials with powder charges for the Remington Creedmoor rifle at long range.

    Full Contents:
    • Report - Metford Trophy
    • News - The Hepsworth Medal
    • The Woe's of Corporal Peake
    • Firearms History - Firearm Manufacture / Barrel-Making / The Proof Test / Machine-Made Interchangeable Rifles
    • Old English and Modern Foreign Rifles (1886)
    • Powder Charge Experiments, 1875
    • Whitworth Hexagonal Bullets
    • A Martini-Henry Score Register
    • The Literature of the Volunteers of 1859 - The Volunteers Take Shape


    Link to Download - external site

    Thanks for your interest.

    David
    www.researchpress.co.uk - www.facebook.com/ResearchPress
    Firearms, long range target shooting and associated history

  2. #2
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    98

    Vertical Deviations With Powder Charge

    David,
    Thank you for your recent free for download, Journal. Being a LR shooter, I've been reading your current article on "Powder Charge Experiments". It supports what we have known about early shooters using larger powder charges back then from 100 grs to even more powder. I'm having a tough time interpreting the measured deviations in the article. What do you think it means when it is printed as 8 80-100 in. or 11 68-100 in.? All the tests used 1F Hazard. The Sharps Rifle Co. recommended a similar charge of Laflin and Rand or Oriental powder. It would be interesting to know where these powders fall in comparison to Swiss 1-1/2. Being a GG shooter, I'm using between 84-6 gr of Swiss 1 1/2. Maybe I should try some 1F?? Only the PP shooters can get that much powder in their cases. Seems as we get older, we are all shooting lesser charges than they did back then. Also read yesterday that the Sharps Catalog listed their 550 grain bullet as being 1 13/32" long or about 1.40". Shorter than what I thought was around 1.5".
    Your article was printed in 1875, just one year after the first Creedmoor match. I wonder how much influence this article had on what the shooters did back then.
    Just rambling here but once again, thanks for all your great work and enthusiasm.

  3. #3
    Well, 8 80-100 in. I interpret as 8 80/100 inch or 8 4/5 inch. I'd assumed the fractions of an inch had all been expressed as 100th to enable easier direct comparison, avoiding some mental gymnastics. The article gives some bullet detail, but just refers to with or without lubricant - it feels like we only have half the detail of the cartridge loading. I wonder what wads / lubricant were used. Wingate in his 'Manual for Rifle Practice' (I have the 6th edition of 1878) notes, "the tendency is toward heavier charges; and all the American team of 1875 used from 100 grains to 108 grains, and considered that it gave them an advantage, their bullets being less affected by wind than those of their opponents." I have an original pack of Sharps bullets, and these (measured wrapped) are 1.5" long.

    David
    www.researchpress.co.uk - www.facebook.com/ResearchPress
    Firearms, long range target shooting and associated history

  4. #4
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    98
    David, I notice that the Sharps 550 grain bullets were made by Winchester. Here is a picture from an 1878 Sharps catalog that states that their 550 grain bullet was 1-13/32" long. Could nose shape have made the difference or do you suspect that the Sharps catalog is wrong? The picture doesn't show the nose of that bullet so maybe it has a meplat but I'm thinking it is their LR load.


  5. #5
    We’re only talking 3/32” (or approx .1”) between my bullets and the those in the catalogue. Mine were measured over the paper patch too, so there’s the paper thickness over the base included as well. Not sure of the date of mine and the time line of any changes that may have occurred in bullet design.

    David
    www.researchpress.co.uk - www.facebook.com/ResearchPress
    Firearms, long range target shooting and associated history

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check