22 Magnum Center Fire feasibility?

[oldred]

Ok the other thread on the 22 Mag/218 Bee had strayed so far off the original topic I thought it best to just pick up where it left off with a new thread. While the original discussion led to me deciding the 22 Mag/218 Bee conversion was not a good idea it did bring up first the subject of the 22CCM and then the possibility of a true 22 Magnum centerfire. This intrigued me to the point that I actually lathe turned and tested a couple of cases for such a round. While the two I made were unsuitable for use because of the wrong brass alloy and proved to be rather brittle (I only had free machining 360 alloy while C260 is used for cartridge cases) I did discover it was not as hard to do or time consuming as I would have thought. The problem at the moment is that the very properties that make the 260 alloy usable for cartridge cases (it's even known in the industry as "cartridge brass") also make it very unforgiving as a machinable alloy. I have been in touch with a long time friend, who is a retired welding/structural engineer from a large mining machinery company, concerning this problem and he has made the suggestion of a kind of hybrid method of doing this that could possibly avoid the problems encountered when attempting to machine this alloy to the required specs. He is fairly confident it will work ok but admittedly he is skeptical as to if it can be done at a reasonable cost per piece, I suppose we simply won't know unless we try!

Anyway this, to me, is very interesting in that it would provide a reloadable 22 Magnum round of slightly reduced performance (due to reduced case capacity because of the primer) but still better than a 22 LR. Unlike the unique 22CCM this round, if it can be done, would work in a standard unmodified 22 Mag chamber and would require only that a firearm be capable of dual RF/CF (Contender?) or being easily converted to CF, the chamber would not be changed. I think this is an interesting concept and, to me anyway, seems like it would be much more appealing than the 22CCM which would render the converted firearm unsuitable for 22 Magnum use after conversion.

[Cap'n Morgan]

Why not try stainless steel? With the thin walls & and pressure of a 22WMR it should seal alright and would probably last forever.

[oldred]

Why not try stainless steel? With the thin walls & and pressure of a 22WMR it should seal alright and would probably last forever.

We (my engineer friend and I) actually discussed using stainless since I have some 3/8" 304 alloy hex bar but he doesn't think it is likely to work very well and probably would crack unless the walls were left fairly thick which would cut into the already rather meager powder capacity, plus it could present resizing problems. Still I can't positively rule it out but unless the hybrid process to form the cartridge brass doesn't work out I probably won't try any other type of material. Just checking around today online it looks as if cartridge brass is readily available and would be quite economical if it could be drawn the normal way but turning to shape, even partially like we discussed is going to produce a lot of waste driving up the cost per piece, still not all that bad however.

[dtknowles]

I think that FN 5.7 brass could be formed and trimmed to what you need. It would take a heavy anneal and the right dies and press. I think the rim is about right you would have to put a big squeeze on the body and head.

Tim

[dtknowles]

There is also a round called .22 Velo Dog that is just about what you are looking for but I think it is obsolete.

Tim

[dtknowles]

Here are a couple links with a picture and story.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog#/media/File:5.75_Velo_dog_-_FMJ_-_2.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog

Tim

[oldred]

Yep, we discussed the Velo-Dog in the other thread and it's apparently identical to the 22CCM, the CCM is obviously loaded heavier and possibly has a stronger case but basically the same dimensions as the Velo-Dog. However neither will work in a 22 Mag chamber which is the goal here.

That FN 5.7 looks to be worth investigating and just might be the answer, one could be re-formed in a proper die with enough pressure and then sectioned to see what the inside of the case near the head forms to. It most likely would have a lot of excess brass taking up space where it gets squeezed around the head but this could probably be reamed out with a purpose made reamer if necessary, definitely worth consideration so thanks for pointing that one out!

[Rustyleee]

Here is a web page from a friend of mine that built this project. A 5MM rimfire converted to a centerfire.
http://downontherange.com/pb/wp_30e5debf/wp_30e5debf.html

There is also a link to another article at the bottom of the page but the link appears to be broken . It's not a .22 but a .20.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Here is what I posted in that other thread:

"You have to consider how desirable a rifle for an unusual cartridge may be to others. You have built your rifle, and may have no thought of selling it. But you wouldn't like to think of it being left in a corner to rust a couple of generations from now, because it is for no available ammunition or loading equipment.

We don't know why the .22CCM was made larger in diameter than the WRM, but I don't think it was likely to be the existence, or former existence, of the Velo Dog. One possibility was that there were Magnum firearms convertible simply by a change or block, which were unsuitable for the higher pressures to which some might load the CCM. It may also have been that it was considered advisable to have a little more thickness of metal around the primer pocket.

I've mentioned this here before, but I have a large quantity of Winchester Super-X headstamped rimfire cases an inch in length, of standard LR diameter but never loaded, which I bought on eBay for making bullet jackets. The only thing I know of that they might have been meant for is shotshells. Although they thicken slightly as you approach the rim, I think a large pistol primer could be rammed all the way down, and the anvil held in place with a superglued or crimped diaphragm made with another one."

It isn't Magnum diameter, and the firing-pin would have to dent the primer through the case head. But many rifles give a stronger firing-pin blow than a pistol. You would need a heel bullet unless you adapted it to a .20 barrel, but one for the .297/.230 is available from http://www.castbulletengineering.com.au/bullet-moulds/rifle/22-calibre in Australia.

[oldred]

Here is what I posted in that other thread:

"You have to consider how desirable a rifle for an unusual cartridge may be to others. You have built your rifle, and may have no thought of selling it. But you wouldn't like to think of it being left in a corner to rust a couple of generations from now, because it is for no available ammunition or loading equipment.

We don't know why the .22CCM was made larger in diameter than the WRM, but I don't think it was likely to be the existence, or former existence, of the Velo Dog. One possibility was that there were Magnum firearms convertible simply by a change or block, which were unsuitable for the higher pressures to which some might load the CCM. It may also have been that it was considered advisable to have a little more thickness of metal around the primer pocket.

I've mentioned this here before, but I have a large quantity of Winchester Super-X headstamped rimfire cases an inch in length, of standard LR diameter but never loaded, which I bought on eBay for making bullet jackets. The only thing I know of that they might have been meant for is shotshells. Although they thicken slightly as you approach the rim, I think a large pistol primer could be rammed all the way down, and the anvil held in place with a superglued or crimped diaphragm made with another one."

It isn't Magnum diameter, and the firing-pin would have to dent the primer through the case head. But many rifles give a stronger firing-pin blow than a pistol. You would need a heel bullet unless you adapted it to a .20 barrel, but one for the .297/.230 is available from http://www.castbulletengineering.com.au/bullet-moulds/rifle/22-calibre in Australia.




Well the idea here would be to simply create an otherwise standard 22 Magnum except for having a conventional reloadable center fire primer, the goal would be to use a standard center fire rifle or pistol with no modification except for center fire capability. The internal primer is an interesting idea and of course a similar system was used quite a lot back in the BP days, early 45/70 comes to mind, and could likely work as you described, however it would take up a lot of space in the case and would be much more difficult to reload even if the spent primer could somehow be removed.

[oldred]

I have been researching that 5.7x28 round and it looks as if it may be a viable alternative to making from scratch, not nearly as simple as swaging it down to size but it still looks to be doable. The main problem is the fact that the solid, or at least MUCH heavier portion of the head must be reformed and this presents some problems, I found this cut-away on the 'net so the problem becomes a bit clearer when looking at this,

156522


The main problem is the web portion will be completely distorted squeezing the flash hole completely closed (and then some!) but the primer pocket could be supported by a proper made head support. Obviously in order to prevent irreparable damage the case head would need to be annealed first but (hopefully) the forming process would work harden it thus returning it to a usable condition, the case walls may or may not present a problem in this regard. Solving the cases forming problems would be the first hurdle and I envision it like this, anneal the cases so that the brass can freely form without damage, perform the sizing operation while supporting the priming pocket thereby maintaining it's shape but allowing all material above that point to assume whatever shape the forming operation results in. The flash hole could then be re-drilled and a purpose made reamer could take out whatever material necessary to return the web area to a normal shape.

Sounds simple enough BUT?

Forming dies would be easy enough to make as would the holder/primer pocket support, the reamer could be made to shape the web area to about any shape desired but the real question would be will all that brass move around the way we need it to? I think it's worth a try so if I can locate a few empty cases I will make the dies and give it a try, who knows maybe it will actually work!

[dtknowles]

If you send my a postage paid self addressed envelope I will send you some 5.7 brass. PM me for my address and case count and weight.

Tim

[B R Shooter]

A 221 Fireball is a dandy little fellow, you can load it down to 22mag performance if you wish. Brass is available.

[oldred]

A 221 Fireball is a dandy little fellow, you can load it down to 22mag performance if you wish. Brass is available.



I agree that it is indeed a neat little round but again the goal here is try and come up with a reloadable round for the 22 Mag requiring minimal conversion (or no conversion in some such as the Contender) to the firearm, at least nothing that couldn't be reversed with minimal effort.

[oldred]

If you send my a postage paid self addressed envelope I will send you some 5.7 brass. PM me for my address and case count and weight.

Tim


Thank you I will get in touch with you in a couple of days or so, a few cases would be a big help! It shouldn't require many at all, some would have to be sectioned to determine how the brass reacted to the sizing process but most should be usable for testing if this works out ok.

[dtknowles]

Thank you I will get in touch with you in a couple of days or so, a few cases would be a big help! It shouldn't require many at all, some would have to be sectioned to determine how the brass reacted to the sizing process but most should be usable for testing if this works out ok.

Grumpa might have clues about sizing. I would not size all the way to the head. I would leave that last bit unsized and turn them down on the lathe.

Tim

[oldred]

Grumpa might have clues about sizing. I would not size all the way to the head. I would leave that last bit unsized and turn them down on the lathe.

Tim


Yeah that's a concern for sure, I had already considered doing just that for two reasons, any attempt to size all the way to the rim would first create a severe stress area right at the rim which could lead to cracks plus it would be difficult to keep the rim from distorting. Looking at that diagram it might be a bit tricky but I think a forming die with a slight flare at the bottom could be used to form the upper part while just gently rolling in the lower section. The excess on the outside could then be turned off leaving the inside about right and possibly even eliminating the reaming step. It will take some experimentation but should make for an interesting project, very little to lose except the time involved and after all it is just a hobby!

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Yeah that's a concern for sure, I had already considered doing just that for two reasons, any attempt to size all the way to the rim would first create a severe stress area right at the rim which could lead to cracks plus it would be difficult to keep the rim from distorting. Looking at that diagram it might be a bit tricky but I think a forming die with a slight flare at the bottom could be used to form the upper part while just gently rolling in the lower section. The excess on the outside could then be turned off leaving the inside about right and possibly even eliminating the reaming step. It will take some experimentation but should make for an interesting project, very little to lose except the time involved and after all it is just a hobby!

Yes, if you use this case, or the marginally smaller Hornet, I think sizing just past the powder chamber and turning down the rest is the best way to do it. I believe you would need some kind of holding device with a spigot to keep the primer pocket from contracting, or a device to swage it back again after it had done so.

There is a potential problem though. The FN P90 is a weapon that just might become effectively limited to institutional purchasers, like the Striker shotgun, and institutions rarely reload. It isn't impossible that this brass might disappear from the market, but the Hornet will be there as long as there are guns.

[dtknowles]

The problem with he Hornet brass is the rim is so much bigger but I guess if the brass is going to be turned anyway that would not matter.

Tim

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The problem with he Hornet brass is the rim is so much bigger but I guess if the brass is going to be turned anyway that would not matter.

Tim

That is what I thought. If you don't have a lathe, a useful tool for turning down the rim and the solid head is a well sharpened rebate plane like this:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/311513338223?ssPageName=STRK:MESINDXX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1436.l2649

I wouldn't turn anything on a hand-held electric drill, as some advise you can. The armature is never perfectly balanced, and that makes for vibration. If you can make an arbor for a slower rotating electric screwdriver, it should be fine.

The Hornet rim would have to be thinned as well.One way of doing it would be to make a thin-rimmed dummy chamber in a piece of steel, and squash it thinner in a press or engineering vice. The primer pocket could be deepened with a punch to compensate.

[leadman]

Magnum Mike runs the website Specialty Pistols has a 22 CCM and has fired 22 Magnum in it. Some accuracy was lost but he stated it would be good for about 50 yards to hunt with. I suppose it would vary with the gun and the chamber as to how it shot.

[oldred]

Ok I found some 5.7x28 brass locally and it should be here tomorrow if I can just find the time now to make the dies, if we can just deal with all that excess brass around the web area I think this just might work.


The Hornet too may be an even better option so I won't discount that one yet, apparently the Hornet will work for the CCM since there is CCM brass derived from IT available so I would think the 22 Mag would be just easy.

[SOFMatchstaff]

You are going to be disappointed when the 5.7 primer pockets start expanding as they do in the current factory loadings and even worse when reloaded. I lose more cases to the pocket failure than to any other cause. I dont load hot either. The metal just isnt there and if you plan to turn the cases, it will get really thin. the thickness at the pocket wall at the extractor cut is only .040 to start with, and the Hornet would be about the same with the rim turned off.

[oldred]

You are going to be disappointed when the 5.7 primer pockets start expanding as they do in the current factory loadings and even worse when reloaded. I lose more cases to the pocket failure than to any other cause. I dont load hot either. The metal just isnt there and if you plan to turn the cases, it will get really thin. the thickness at the pocket wall at the extractor cut is only .040 to start with, and the Hornet would be about the same with the rim turned off.


That's interesting and I see what you mean, that's a problem I hadn't even considered. I don't know if that has been a problem with the CCM which is only very slightly larger, if the CCM doesn't suffer from that problem then likely the 22 Mag "shouldn't"(?) either but still I see the concern there!

[Cap'n Morgan]

The 5.7x28 is a 50.000 PSI cartridge. The 22WMR is 24.000 PSI Max cartridge. If pressures are held at 22WMR levels (as they should, unless we're talking Contender or similar guns) the primer pockets should be fine.

[leftiye]

Take a 22 CCM case and turn it down about .005" and it will go in a .22 mag chamber. Might have to reduce the rim thickness too.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The 5.7x28 is a 50.000 PSI cartridge. The 22WMR is 24.000 PSI Max cartridge. If pressures are held at 22WMR levels (as they should, unless we're talking Contender or similar guns) the primer pockets should be fine.

Yes, exactly. A CCM or similar round could be loaded to give more performance than the Magnum, if good cases were available, at far less pressure than the 5.7x28R.

[Willbird]

I think I would use good old 12L14 steel :-).

Brass cartridge cases are work hardened in the head area in the corming process, then selectively annealed several times during the process so that their yield strength in the head area is higher than the maximum pressure of the cartridge.

There have been instances of cases getting stuck in an annealing station meant to anneal the necks only, and the whole case was annealed...these are incredibly dangerous, at 50,000-60,000 psi the case heads will flow and rupture. There will be an uncontrolled release of high pressure gas. Not sure on the yield strength of the brass bar stock. Yes as I suspected Speedy Metals lists the Yield strength of 260 brass as 10,900psi.

The Yield strength of 12L14 is 60,200 PSI. It should be plenty strong enough...and they call it "screw machine stock" because it machines so nicely. You can often buy "bar ends" on Ebay pretty cheap....they are the left over portion of a 12' bar.

There is a machine called a "swiss turn" that would do a very nice job machining cases. If they were fit to the chamber for a known bullet dia (leave say .002 clearance over loaded round) they might never need sizing.

This concept would be easiest tried in a TC contender 22 magnum barrel.

Bill

[Ballistics in Scotland]

You are right about the unsuitability of certain brass alloys, although work hardening is important. I would feel all right about using any brass for a shotgun case, but not a rifle of any great power for its size. It can be hard for the amateur to tell them apart, and optimism isn't invariably a virtue - in an eBay seller, say. There are some who buy up lots of surplus material and describe it by the light of nature. I would only buy bargain bar ends from a genuine business user of the stuff.

But there is no direct link between the pressure and tensile or yield strength figures, just because both are expressed in pounds per square inch. Tensile strength is the force which must be applied to break, by a straight pull, a bar of one square inch in section. Yield strength is the force, less in the sort of materials we are dealing with, at which the elasticity of the metal is exceeded, and it doesn't go completely back to its original size once the force is released.

There is no one square inch section in a firearm case, and virtually all firearms apply to a much smaller section, enough force to exceed the yield strength. If they didn't we would never have to resize them, and we would be in real trouble with paper or plastic cases for shotguns or the somewhat higher pressure "bore" rifles which were once used in Africa. The reason that the tensile strength isn't exceeded too, is that a properly designed chamber and breech stop the yielding before that happens.

12L14 is a fairly mild carbon steel, and probably lacks the ductility required for a cartridge case. Where steel cases have been used, notably by the Russians but sometimes by the US in wartime, it has been drawn and work-hardened very much like brass, rather than turned. I have found a steel .45ACP case which had suffered a head separation on a range. Brass does exist up to about the same tensile strength as 12L14 when work-hardened, but at the risk of excessive repetition, that would depend on just the right cycle of annealing and work-hardening. Simply turned steel or the more easily worked brasses would depend crucially on close fit to your individual chamber, and perhaps to thicker walls close to the head than in commercial cases.

[oldred]

The work hardening issue is the main reason for the hybrid process I mentioned earlier, while it's not practical to fully form a brass case from a slug in a home shop this method would require only the finial forming step. This should harden the head/web area sufficiently to create a safe cartridge and one that should maintain the primer pocket dimensions. The fella I have been discussing this with has a full understanding of the process and is just a phone call away, proper annealing temperatures and even the amount of pressure required have been determined already. I probably would not attempt this on a modern high pressure round but a small diameter low pressure case such as this "should" be safe enough, for sure if I manage to make a few usable cases these will be tested to pressures far above anything that they would be normally loaded to.

Before we get to that I need to actually make a few of these things, it may be a week or more before I can even start since I first need to finish an old farm tractor project I have been working on but that is nearly done.

[Willbird]

You are right about the unsuitability of certain brass alloys, although work hardening is important. I would feel all right about using any brass for a shotgun case, but not a rifle of any great power for its size. It can be hard for the amateur to tell them apart, and optimism isn't invariably a virtue - in an eBay seller, say. There are some who buy up lots of surplus material and describe it by the light of nature. I would only buy bargain bar ends from a genuine business user of the stuff.

But there is no direct link between the pressure and tensile or yield strength figures, just because both are expressed in pounds per square inch. Tensile strength is the force which must be applied to break, by a straight pull, a bar of one square inch in section. Yield strength is the force, less in the sort of materials we are dealing with, at which the elasticity of the metal is exceeded, and it doesn't go completely back to its original size once the force is released.

There is no one square inch section in a firearm case, and virtually all firearms apply to a much smaller section, enough force to exceed the yield strength. If they didn't we would never have to resize them, and we would be in real trouble with paper or plastic cases for shotguns or the somewhat higher pressure "bore" rifles which were once used in Africa. The reason that the tensile strength isn't exceeded too, is that a properly designed chamber and breech stop the yielding before that happens.

12L14 is a fairly mild carbon steel, and probably lacks the ductility required for a cartridge case. Where steel cases have been used, notably by the Russians but sometimes by the US in wartime, it has been drawn and work-hardened very much like brass, rather than turned. I have found a steel .45ACP case which had suffered a head separation on a range. Brass does exist up to about the same tensile strength as 12L14 when work-hardened, but at the risk of excessive repetition, that would depend on just the right cycle of annealing and work-hardening. Simply turned steel or the more easily worked brasses would depend crucially on close fit to your individual chamber, and perhaps to thicker walls close to the head than in commercial cases.

I disagree about yield and tensile strength...IMHO they apply here just like they do anywhere else...it is OK that we do not agree :-). I will FULLY admit I may be demonstrating IGNORANCE here, and education may cure that :-).

When I was a kid my dad was a part time Gunsmith, did repairs for a local shop, had FFL, tinkered with his own stuff. He made a center fire breech block for a Martini action a friend of his had. We are using the memory of a 8-10 year old me here but it was similar in size to the 310 martini...and similar to one I have in 380 Rook. The rifle in question was a 25 rimfire. Ammo was mostly unobtanium at that time (probably 1972 maybe ?). The thought was similar, with a center fire breech block the rifle could be used again. So dad made up the breechblock and lathe turned one cartridge case. The breechblock BTW was a work of art, but anyway. Not sure the load he decided on...but he loaded it up and we headed out to a spot where we would test fire stuff, old gravel pit.

He for sure did not shoulder the rifle, he held it at arms length and test fired it....as he somewhat expected the case failed due to the metal flowing due to internal pressure, it was a mess,,,did not HARM anything but lathe turned brass cases from that material were not useable. The gun owner had in mind to reform 22 hornet cases maybe and the project was handed off to him, never heard another thing about it. I know his Nephew and might someday move that whole project back here to my place 40 years after it started :-).

I have at hand here some strain gauge pressure data developed by Harold Vaughn. He took a rifle case and fit it with a hydraulic line that went down the bore and came out the muzzle of a rifle. Here is the cartridge case he used.
http://i.imgur.com/VRAhZm3.png

And he found that it took 12,000 psi to make the case fill the chamber and in turn start to stretch the barrel (hoop strain).
http://i.imgur.com/YEqrqF4.png

Now when we make "tight neck" cases we can turn necks so the loaded round is around .0015" under chamber neck dia and we never need to resize necks. The number .0016" has often been quoted as the spring back factor for "normal" case necks, if we fire a case, and measure it...as long as it was a decent pressure load we can generally figure the neck in the chamber is about .0016 bigger than a fired case neck.

So a test case, the first one anyway may never need sized if it is made .0015 smaller than the chamber if it were a brass case, and maybe even more clearance would work fine with steel. The Modulus of elasticity for steels is the generally the same no matter the hardness...so we could ensure that the pressure we develop would expand the case to seal the chamber (that may be an issue). I'm seeing roughly
29.5 for steels...and around 15 for some brass alloys.

We are not constrained by the considerations people mass producing steel cases encounter when forming them...ours would be "billet" cases :-).

The problem area for center fire rifles is that a lot of case head just plain hangs out in the air :-)...and even best case there is an area where the extractor is that is not well supported.

On a Remington 700 the case will extrude into the ejector hole as the first sign you have started to yield the case head, metal is flowing with each shot, even if the chamber is very tight and fits the case 100% the cases will not last long. Back the load off 2% (most of my experience with this is a case that holds 50 grains of powder)...and the cases will last forever.

All a very interesting topic, I am working on a home brewed strain gauge setup of my own at present :-)

Bill

[Willbird]

TIME is also possible operative in why cartridge cases "work"...despite being fairly soft in the forward areas peak pressure only lasts maybe 1ms (1 millisecond)...Corbin says when swaging bullets one must allow time for the nearly pure lead to flow fully. So time is part of the equation probably ??

Bill

[oldred]

WB, that's very interesting and quite helpful, thanks for taking the time to post that. It is very much in line with what my friend has been telling me, a lot of which is engineering talk and kind of hard for me to comprehend but he get's a laugh out of that and dumbs it down so that even I can understand (most of the time anyway :?)!


He is certain that given the time and effort that making cases from virgin 206 alloy brass will work just fine, he is however skeptical if it will be worth the time and effort required but then I can be quite stubborn in that respect. What this will involve will be a semi-sized turned case that will then be finished by either a high pressure press procedure (I have the means to do that) or better yet a forging process that would finish these cases to size but that might get a bit more complicated, still not out of the question here since it involves such a small relatively soft item. This would require inserting the semi-finished cases into a die and then either pressing or ramming an internal die into the case to finish form the case walls and compress the web/head area. While that may sound like a full industrial sized operation it should be very much doable in a small shop on a small scale and I have the means to make and harden a matching die set. Precisely limiting the depth the internal die would be required to properly form the web/head and the means to accomplish the force needed to do so would need to be worked out but both he and I have quite a bit of experience doing that sort of thing, I built parts that he engineered/designed (injection lube systems).

I know this went from a simple rechamber job to making a cartridge case from scratch (or reforming an existing one) but it is not a new idea to me, I have been tossing this around since the panic induced RF shortage started. At first it was about how to manufacture some means of economically shooting RF firearms and I looked at everything from nail gun cartridges to reloading spent RF brass but nothing practical came of it, I am obviously not alone as many others have been doing this also and some have actually succeeded to at least some degree. However I remain convinced that a centerfire conversion is the only practical approach and obviously it's questionable if even that is practical for these smaller rounds, in any case there is only one way to know for sure and that's to try! This discussion has lit the fire again to try something one way or the other so ANY suggestions or thoughts are welcome and maybe with enough effort we might be able to come up with something workable.

[Willbird]

oldred I'd just turn them from an appropriate solid :-) bar :-).

Not sure if I mentioned it but there is a machine called a "swiss turn" that is perfect for a job like that. They probably use them for a lot of bullets that are machined from solid.

My wife works for a company that delivers brass rod to a company that makes a lot of coax connectors, like used on the back of most TV's...they machine a lot of that stuff from solid. 45,000lbs of brass rod goes into the place one week and 43,000lbs of brass shavings come back to the foundry the next week :-).

Bill

[Willbird]

Your case could be a hybrid as well :-).

Soft solder a forward section made of normal cartridge case onto a base made of another material.

[oldred]

The problem with turning them from solid is that alloy 260 (known in the industry as cartridge brass) has VERY poor machining qualities making it unsuitable for turned brass, the turned brass that is available is well known for it's tendency to crack so I "assume" something such as C360 alloy is usually selected despite being the wrong type of brass for cartridge strength. It seems to be a choice between trying to use a ductile material that's nearly impossible to machine into something as thin a a brass cartridge case or choose a machinable alloy that has poor ductility thus the tendency to crack upon firing.

When this discussion first stated (it may have been the other thread) I mentioned that I turned a couple of cases using the very common 360 alloy and it was much too brittle, even after annealing the second case it made little difference. These cases may have lasted one or two firings before cracking and maybe even a few more but they were obviously not going to last long, also those machine turned 22CCM cases that were available a few years ago had a terrible reputation for only being loadable once or twice and often cracked on the first firing, or at least that was my understanding.

[Willbird]

How did the machined 5mm Craig cases do I wonder ? They were a lot thicker.....having a 5mm hole straight down into them.

http://www.varminter.com/particles/5mmcraig.html

This may have already been posted, if so I'm sorry in advance

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?241125-22-Hornet-to-5mm-Mag-Centerfire

[Cap'n Morgan]

I'm pretty sure machined cases is the way to go. A double spindled swiss machine would spit out a complete case in a matter of seconds. Even with the walls being thinner than .01" it should not present a problem

I have shot my 577/450 Martini Henry using cases made from ordinary free-machining brass. I used a chamber cast to get an accurate reading of the chamber and machined the cases to .001" under size. As long as pressures was held below 20.000 PSI, a case would easily last for ten firings before resizing (resizing= a few strokes with a file while spinning the case in a lathe) I never had a case that split.
Of course, with a small case like the 22WMR it's important to keep tolerances as tight as possible.

You don't have to worry about holding the bullet in place. Just machine the case with a slight internal step to keep the bullet from seating too deep. A tiny dap of cyanoacrylate glue will secure the bullet in place (or, if you use boolits, a sticky lube will do the same)

[oldred]

How did the machined 5mm Craig cases do I wonder ? They were a lot thicker.....having a 5mm hole straight down into them.

http://www.varminter.com/particles/5mmcraig.html

This may have already been posted, if so I'm sorry in advance

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?241125-22-Hornet-to-5mm-Mag-Centerfire



Yep that's exactly my point, obviously they too found cartridge brass unsuitable for machining and I found at the bottom of the article that they also used the "half-hard" 360 alloy, the same alloy that I used making those two experimental (failed) cases a couple of weeks ago. Apparently they attempted to address the cracking problem by leaving the case walls thicker and thinning only the neck but with the 22 Mag the powder capacity has already been reduced by adding the primer so thicker case walls would result in a fairly anemic round. Unless I missed it I don't think they addressed case life but I would be very surprised if those cases lasted more than a couple of loadings, even after several attempts at annealing the 360 alloy cases I made they remained brittle and crack prone when subjected to flex compared to side by side testing of them vs some spent CCI 22 Mag brass.

Really I don't think a 100% machined case is practical and that's probably why they have such a poor reputation, the very properties that are necessary to make to make cartridge brass (260 alloy) usable and long lasting are what makes it so difficult to machine. On the fip side the properties that make for a good machining brass are what makes it all but totally unsuitable for cartridge cases, the ductility just isn't there and can't be satisfactorily achieved by annealing because it's due to the alloy of the brass not the state of hardness.

[Willbird]

Yep that's exactly my point, obviously they too found cartridge brass unsuitable for machining and I found at the bottom of the article that they also used the "half-hard" 360 alloy, the same alloy that I used making those two experimental (failed) cases a couple of weeks ago. Apparently they attempted to address the cracking problem by leaving the case walls thicker and thinning only the neck but with the 22 Mag the powder capacity has already been reduced by adding the primer so thicker case walls would result in a fairly anemic round. Unless I missed it I don't think they addressed case life but I would be very surprised if those cases lasted more than a couple of loadings, even after several attempts at annealing the 360 alloy cases I made they remained brittle and crack prone when subjected to flex compared to side by side testing of them vs some spent CCI 22 Mag brass.

Really I don't think a 100% machined case is practical and that's probably why they have such a poor reputation, the very properties that are necessary to make to make cartridge brass (260 alloy) usable and long lasting are what makes it so difficult to machine. On the fip side the properties that make for a good machining brass are what makes it all but totally unsuitable for cartridge cases, the ductility just isn't there and can't be satisfactorily achieved by annealing because it's due to the alloy of the brass not the state of hardness.

Well That brings me full circle to alloys other than brass....back to steel or aluminum. The case capacity and lack of proper powders in canister grades no doubt will be an issue. I pulled a lot of 22lr rounds as a kid doing experiments, making my own "quiet" ammo mostly, pulled a few 22 magnum and they all seemed to be loaded to 100% loading density.

[oldred]

Case capacity is an issue and I have mentioned that a couple of times, this case if it can be economically made will have a capacity somewhere between a regular 22 Mag and a 22 LR so the performance is expected to be somewhat less than a full 22 Mag but better than a LR.

I have considered Aluminum but while there are suitable alloys of aluminum that will make a strong enough case and still be easily machinable I doubt they would be reloadable to any satisfactory degree, I discussed this with Bill (the engineer friend) and he discounted aluminum right off the bat except for a one time fire case and that seems to be the situation with the commercially loaded aluminum cases. Steel cases may be the best option of all, the 12L14 is a REALLY good free machining steel (it has lead added just for that purpose) and should easily make these cases with very thin yet sufficiently strong walls. Reloading cycles "might" be questionable but even if less than brass it would be a lot easier and more economical per piece to make so it might be a viable alternative. Except for firing a bunch of those disposable Russian steel cased rounds in my Son's SKS I have zero experience with steel cases, however I have a couple of 12L14 3/4" bars and while that may be akin to making a tooth pick from a log I might just have to try a couple of those!

[Clark]

oldred (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?12672-oldred)

Ok I found some 5.7x28 brass locally


Most cartridges are just variants of old ones, but the 5.7x28 seems to be a wholly new cartridge case head.
The weakest case heads are the 25acp and 10mm.
The extractor groove gets too close to the primer pocket.
But they are still good to ~ 50kpsi before the primer pocket gets loose.
The 5.7, I am measuring 0.251" extractor groove. With a 0.12" dia pocket, that is a 0.0655" pocket wall
On the 25acp I am measuring 0.244". -> 0.0620" pocket wall
If these things were linear and accurate and precise [fat chance] that would estimate the 5.7 good to 53 kpsi
Looks like 5.7 is registered at 50kpsi.
That would be like reloading the 22-250, 6mmRem, or 270. They are registered at 65kpsi and the Mauser case head is good to 67 kpsi. No room for error.

[SOFMatchstaff]

Wrong, avg extractor cut dia is .255, small pistol/rifle primer dia. .175 , wall thickness at the weakest point is just under .040 and weak is the operative word. these numbers off of a new unfired case.

[leftiye]

It still sounds to me like some Schroeder .22 CCM brass turned down about .004" might be your best bet. Schroeder sells it for about $.60 apiece. It is made from .22 Hornet, and it the correct alloy of brass, plus it is formed and therefore hardened properly. Beyond that it is a rimmed design case offering maximum head strength in this situation where the walls of the primer pocket are thin. Or you could just go .22 CCM with just a tetch of reaming your chamber. P.S. This is what I did.

[Willbird]

It still sounds to me like some Schroeder .22 CCM brass turned down about .004" might be your best bet. Schroeder sells it for about $.60 apiece. It is made from .22 Hornet, and it the correct alloy of brass, plus it is formed and therefore hardened properly. Beyond that it is a rimmed design case offering maximum head strength in this situation where the walls of the primer pocket are thin. Or you could just go .22 CCM with just a tetch of reaming your chamber. P.S. This is what I did.

I would sure test the CCM to death first.....it is the easier softer way :-).

22 magnum ammo will not be in short supply forever either.....the rimfire ammo drought cannot go on forever, people are not buying it to shoot it for the most part.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Pressure applied by a hydraulic pump is an imperfect guide to what happens under momentary impact. When testing for strength is it likely to be satisfactory, and would err in the direction of safety. Bur brass on steel creep may be a quite different matter. Good loading practices avoid a dangerous pressure wave, but there is surely always a moving pressure wave of some sort.

One of the benefits of a composite case-head, if it can be made to work, is that it needn't be malleable or ductile, or subject to over-annealing. In, I think the 1990s someone marketed Steelhead cases, not for a long the time, which had a brass tube threaded into, not onto, a turned steel head. It might be that their demise had something to do with removing some of the signs of excessive pressure, which was very likely the main reason for people to buy the things.

If we simply threaded a brass sleeve over a steel head, I think pressure would expand it off the steel, as I think pressure does with the case-neck off a bullet (making, incidentally, a tested bullet pull measurement less than useful.) Probably the best way would be to thread the head with as fine a 6mm. or similar thread as you can get, expand K&S ¼in. tubing just enough to slide over, and then swage it down to fit in a chamber diameter die - your chamber - which will cut the thread into the tube. Then you heat i

If you could get every size of case down to the same clearance in the chamber, that amounts to a whole lot more circumferential stretch in a quarter-inch diameter case than in the five-eighths inch Martini-Henry. Still, I wouldn't necessarily give up on a case turned entirely from one of the difficult grades of brass, though. It would surely drill or ream in the lathe, with one blade opposite each cutting one, and as I said, a toolpost grinder would make smooth and accurate work of the outside. I'd drill the primer pocket and flash-hole undersize, and expand them with a turned steel punch in a fly-press, or an improvised device to use in a large engineering vice.

[Willbird]

Pressure applied by a hydraulic pump is an imperfect guide to what happens under momentary impact. When testing for strength is it likely to be satisfactory, and would err in the direction of safety. Bur brass on steel creep may be a quite different matter. Good loading practices avoid a dangerous pressure wave, but there is surely always a moving pressure wave of some sort.

One of the benefits of a composite case-head, if it can be made to work, is that it needn't be malleable or ductile, or subject to over-annealing. In, I think the 1990s someone marketed Steelhead cases, not for a long the time, which had a brass tube threaded into, not onto, a turned steel head. It might be that their demise had something to do with removing some of the signs of excessive pressure, which was very likely the main reason for people to buy the things.

If we simply threaded a brass sleeve over a steel head, I think pressure would expand it off the steel, as I think pressure does with the case-neck off a bullet (making, incidentally, a tested bullet pull measurement less than useful.) Probably the best way would be to thread the head with as fine a 6mm. or similar thread as you can get, expand K&S ¼in. tubing just enough to slide over, and then swage it down to fit in a chamber diameter die - your chamber - which will cut the thread into the tube. Then you heat i

If you could get every size of case down to the same clearance in the chamber, that amounts to a whole lot more circumferential stretch in a quarter-inch diameter case than in the five-eighths inch Martini-Henry. Still, I wouldn't necessarily give up on a case turned entirely from one of the difficult grades of brass, though. It would surely drill or ream in the lathe, with one blade opposite each cutting one, and as I said, a toolpost grinder would make smooth and accurate work of the outside. I'd drill the primer pocket and flash-hole undersize, and expand them with a turned steel punch in a fly-press, or an improvised device to use in a large engineering vice.

The textbook that I posted that from (I consider it a textbook) was addressing how to calibrate the strain gauge....so his findings were perfectly valid. And they would apply to low pressure loading most of us have seen that never push the case back onto the primer (people refer to it as primers backing out) and leave cases smokey because they do not seal. If your strain gauge is over the chamber as his was....your pressure readings cannot possibly be valid :-).

The one maker of pressure tracer equipment shows flat topped pressure traces, and speaks of how dangerous a condition they are exposing....the barrel is permenantly yielding with each shot.

A RCBS primer pocket swage could be used to final form primer pockets, the one made to remove crimps. I have mashed them into a berdan pocket in some carcano brass once :-).

[Ballistics in Scotland]

There are aluminium alloys as tough as the best brass, but they present about the same difficulties in machining, and perhaps aren't as readily drawn either. The only one I have seen was a flare pistol cartridge, but they have been used, I think by Speer, for fairly modest powered handgun loads. It is probably cheaper than steel when manufacturing costs are taken into consideration, and much cheaper than copper. So if there weren't any snags I think we would see a lot more of it

There isn't much doubt what happens with a cartridge case, regarding tensile and yield strengths. People flirted with solid metal, non-expansive cases for centuries, and none gained any kind of popularity. What did was the case which is expanded by the gas pressure to seal the chamber. With the minute tolerances used by benchresters it is just possible that it might spring back to its original dimensions for quite a number of firings. But all cartridges for ordinary use are stressed beyond their yield strength.

[Clark]

In, I think the 1990s someone marketed Steelhead cases,


Casull was doing it. Randy Ketchum was doing the hybrid steel case head/ brass body.

I have used strain gauges to measure torque on jet engine starter generator test bed. They work on a simple structure and/or a calibratable system. I do not consider rifles eligible on either account.

If the case head is the weak link, the pressure of the threshold of extractor groove expansion should be the same across cartridges; e.g. 22-250 to 35 Whelen with large Boxer primer pockets are the Mauser case head. This threshold I have found to be between 73kpsi and 78kpsi in Quickload when velocity predicted matches velocity on chrono. In 2005 I got Scott Sweet to calculate Von Misses yield pressures for 65.3 ksi C26000 H06 brass on Mauser case head primer pockets shows yield at 76,577 psi. VM for belted magnums at 79,597 psi. VM predicts 86,427 psi for the 223 case head. Rimmed cases and 6mmBR cases primer pockets are not the weak link.

I handload 65 different cartridges and have overload worked up many of them. If you do this enough, you can see what is going to happen without doing it.

[Willbird]

Casull was doing it. Randy Ketchum was doing the hybrid steel case head/ brass body.

I have used strain gauges to measure torque on jet engine starter generator test bed. They work on a simple structure and/or a calibratable system. I do not consider rifles eligible on either account.

If the case head is the weak link, the pressure of the threshold of extractor groove expansion should be the same across cartridges; e.g. 22-250 to 35 Whelen with large Boxer primer pockets are the Mauser case head. This threshold I have found to be between 73kpsi and 78kpsi in Quickload when velocity predicted matches velocity on chrono. In 2005 I got Scott Sweet to calculate Von Misses yield pressures for 65.3 ksi C26000 H06 brass on Mauser case head primer pockets shows yield at 76,577 psi. VM for belted magnums at 79,597 psi. VM predicts 86,427 psi for the 223 case head. Rimmed cases and 6mmBR cases primer pockets are not the weak link.

I handload 65 different cartridges and have overload worked up many of them. If you do this enough, you can see what is going to happen without doing it.

If one applies hydraulic pressure in a controlled fashion....and develops a straight line of values as Mr. Vaughn did, why would it not be "eligible" ?? I'm building my setup for use with a .416 smokeless muzzle loader, there will be no cartridge case.. Others use a commercial unit and get what seem to be consistent results. Using one without calibrating it would not leave me nearly as confident with the variables of chamber shape and barrel profiles involved between different guns, but the maker seems quite confident in it.

But the case heads of different types and brands of brass cannot possible be exactly the same as far as measuring extractor grooves ??

https://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/dbramwell%20july%2019%2004.pdf

Really long article there.....that pretty much says to shelve measuring case heads as in any way useable.

Personally I seek the highest velocity at the LOWEST pressure, and once in a great while I DO find that, when I do I am very happy :-). Some factory loadings they actually press the powder into the case to achieve a higher velocity with a SAAMI compliant pressure. I read an article about that practice, I think it was Hornady doing it. It allows them to use a powder that would be "too slow" if the case was filled to 100% density with a funnel, or even what we consider "compression" by seating a bullet.

Bill

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I handload 65 different cartridges and have overload worked up many of them. If you do this enough, you can see what is going to happen without doing it.

From a safe distance when someone else is doing it, with any luck.

I'm sure your information is good, but the blowup level or non-blowup level also owes a lot to the way a particular rifle supports the cartridges. Almost all modern cases reach their yield point, and with the many factors that can affect pressure, the rather small difference between that and rupture is far too narrow to aim at. So safety depends on limiting the distance the brass is permitted to yield, and where.

Here is a case in point, and about as threatening a case-head and primer as you are liable to see, although it was done in a remotely controlled pressure gun during cartridge development. The headstamp is .375 H&H, but it was actually necked down for an experimental improved version of the monstrous .244 H&H Magnum. I may be wrong, but I think the friend who had the case and shoulder gauge got them from David Lloyd, who designed the original and his improved 6mm. Lloyd.


157132157131

[Clark]

I am an EE, Denton that wrote that article is an EE, and we have debated on and off for over a decade. There is a third EE, Glenn, who really debates Denton more than me.
My attitude is that anyone can buy a CEA-06-250UW-350 strain gauge, glue them to the outside of a rifle chamber, put a Wheatstone bridge around it, design a much better instrument amplifier than Oehler just by using modern op amps, hook it up to a garden variety storage scope, and voila, get a trace. The interpretation of that trace into something useful is going to be harder. The book of stress vs strain formulas for complex shapes is by Roark.
http://www.amazon.com/Roarks-Formulas-Stress-Strain-Warren/dp/007072542X

I do not think you will find that chamber and barrel taper open ended tube shape as a plug and crank formula.
I do not think you will be able to quantify the error introduced in how the strain gauge was glued.

This leaves one with a trace that cannot be directly tied to NIST.
Another layer of useless comes from the fact that if one did have something traceable and so did have actual psi, what would you do with it?
The SAAMI registered max average pressures for a given cartridge are fairly off the wall and arbitrary for the advanced reloader. He is more interested in real feedback from the real weak link, the brass.

I have all that equipment.
I am not doing it. Two layers of uselessness are enough to make me find something better.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

If one applies hydraulic pressure in a controlled fashion....and develops a straight line of values as Mr. Vaughn did, why would it not be "eligible" ??

You can walk through neck-deep water with only a few pounds of resistance, but almost everybody who tries for high diving records at over 170 feet suffers serious injury.

That article starts like someone postisng on the internet. Of course there is a high degree of correlation between pressure testing (taken during firing) and pressure ring expansion in the case. But that expansion is the beginning of what goes wrong in an accident, or even in once-only use of brass. I'll go with Vernon Speer on its importance.

[Willbird]

From a safe distance when someone else is doing it, with any luck.

I'm sure your information is good, but the blowup level or non-blowup level also owes a lot to the way a particular rifle supports the cartridges. Almost all modern cases reach their yield point, and with the many factors that can affect pressure, the rather small difference between that and rupture is far too narrow to aim at. So safety depends on limiting the distance the brass is permitted to yield, and where.

Here is a case in point, and about as threatening a case-head and primer as you are liable to see, although it was done in a remotely controlled pressure gun during cartridge development. The headstamp is .375 H&H, but it was actually necked down for an experimental improved version of the monstrous .244 H&H Magnum. I may be wrong, but I think the friend who had the case and shoulder gauge got them from David Lloyd, who designed the original and his improved 6mm. Lloyd.


157132157131

The gun itself is often WAY stronger than the cartridge case. I do not consider a ruptured case and escaping gas to be a "blow up"....or it is a different kind than when you actually break the gun due to excessive pressure. I saw a friend at a shoot have a massive overload in an AR15.....the case head swelled up to look like a belted magnum, and a pie shaped section blew out of the case head where the extractor is, yet the bolt was undamaged and once he got the case our he went back to shooting the gun, and still is today as far as I know. In his case it was reloads from a buddy. Personally I would have retired the bolt and barrel extension...because I want to keep my head attached.

I saw a 22-250 round out of a 788 Remington that a buddy of my dads did too, he changed his mind after charging some cases, and dumped them out, and refilled with a different powder...but apparently he did not dump ALL the powder out of at least one case. He was using a powder fairly "fast" for 22-250 so there was room for plenty past a maximum book load. Again the gun was un harmed, he had exceeded the pressure limit of the brass but the rifle was much stronger.


Bill

[Willbird]

I am an EE, Denton that wrote that article is an EE, and we have debated on and off for over a decade. There is a third EE, Glenn, who really debates Denton more than me.
My attitude is that anyone can buy a CEA-06-250UW-350 strain gauge, glue them to the outside of a rifle chamber, put a Wheatstone bridge around it, design a much better instrument amplifier than Oehler just by using modern op amps, hook it up to a garden variety storage scope, and voila, get a trace. The interpretation of that trace into something useful is going to be harder. The book of stress vs strain formulas for complex shapes is by Roark.
http://www.amazon.com/Roarks-Formulas-Stress-Strain-Warren/dp/007072542X

I do not think you will find that chamber and barrel taper open ended tube shape as a plug and crank formula.
I do not think you will be able to quantify the error introduced in how the strain gauge was glued.

This leaves one with a trace that cannot be directly tied to NIST.
Another layer of useless comes from the fact that if one did have something traceable and so did have actual psi, what would you do with it?
The SAAMI registered max average pressures for a given cartridge are fairly off the wall and arbitrary for the advanced reloader. He is more interested in real feedback from the real weak link, the brass.

I have all that equipment.
I am not doing it. Two layers of uselessness are enough to make me find something better.

In my case there is no cartridge case ;-). And I can directly calibrate to at least 15,000 PSI. Not an EE......but I bet I will get some traces :-). And in the case of a smokeless ML it is the only practical way to have much idea what is going on internal ballistics wise. Wandering off topic here :-).

There are myriads of methods to catch samples other than a scope too....:-).

I do agree that where there IS a cartridge case I'm very comfortable finding signs of it starting to yield then backing off. In guns as strong and equally as strong as say a 700 Remington. With a sane approach there is no danger there.
Bill

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The gun itself is often WAY stronger than the cartridge case. I do not consider a ruptured case and escaping gas to be a "blow up"....or it is a different kind than when you actually break the gun due to excessive pressure.

Direct breakage of a rifled firearm by pressure on steel. What more often happens, particularly with front-locking bolt actions, is that the case ruptures and the escaping gases burst the receiver ring. There is great variation twice over between one rifle and another, in the likelihood of the brass rupturing and in their ability to withstand it without bursting. Then if the gas escapes through ports or around the end of the bolt without bursting, there is great variation in the harm rifles allow them to do to the shooter.

I have achieved a double ring bulge experimentally in a shotgun blocked with a couple of 5/16in. nuts wrapped in tissue, an obstruction I could easily move with a cleaning rod. The gases, or rather some part of them, created a bulge by piling up in a zone of very high pressure behind the charge as it decelerated. They then bounced back to the breech and hit the charge again - traveling about thirty inches while the charge had traveled two. This happens because gases are elastic, and like the spring from your ballpoint pen which disappears to the far wall of the room, therefore achieve far higher velocity than the projectile usually allows them to do. They are lighter than the bullet, but energy =MV².

All cases yield and all modern guns are way stronger than the case. With modern rifled firearms, unless damaged or unwisely altered, it is usually a brass failure that produces steel failure. While this doesn't apply to a smokeless muzzle-loader, I think it is a project best left to large firms with full testing facilities, and best not bought from them when they have done it.

[Willbird]

Direct breakage of a rifled firearm by pressure on steel. What more often happens, particularly with front-locking bolt actions, is that the case ruptures and the escaping gases burst the receiver ring. There is great variation twice over between one rifle and another, in the likelihood of the brass rupturing and in their ability to withstand it without bursting. Then if the gas escapes through ports or around the end of the bolt without bursting, there is great variation in the harm rifles allow them to do to the shooter.

I have achieved a double ring bulge experimentally in a shotgun blocked with a couple of 5/16in. nuts wrapped in tissue, an obstruction I could easily move with a cleaning rod. The gases, or rather some part of them, created a bulge by piling up in a zone of very high pressure behind the charge as it decelerated. They then bounced back to the breech and hit the charge again - traveling about thirty inches while the charge had traveled two. This happens because gases are elastic, and like the spring from your ballpoint pen which disappears to the far wall of the room, therefore achieve far higher velocity than the projectile usually allows them to do. They are lighter than the bullet, but energy =MV².

All cases yield and all modern guns are way stronger than the case. With modern rifled firearms, unless damaged or unwisely altered, it is usually a brass failure that produces steel failure. While this doesn't apply to a smokeless muzzle-loader, I think it is a project best left to large firms with full testing facilities, and best not bought from them when they have done it.

That is an opinion....and you are entitled to it :-). But many folks are very successful with them....and there are more and more makers making "substitutes" that come closer and close to being a "smokeless powder". Blackhorn 209 being just one example. They are designed to bulk up like black powder in a rough fashion.

I did see a picture of a barrel that split and in splitting it broke the reciever.

It was one of the Tikka rifles with stainless barrels. Factory rifle shooting factory ammo.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/JohnCharlieNoak/Dsc00032.jpg

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I have just been reminded that the Rocky Mountain Cartridge Company turn cases from the solid, at a price which doesn't quite comply with the hope for economy in the opening post, but is a possibility. They don't say whether they use cartridge brass, but it is a possibility. The .22-10 or .22-15-60 Stevens (the latter being a .263in. head) should be adaptable, and it might be that they would do special work on a case that might fine a wider market.

http://www.rockymountaincartridge.com/products.html

http://www.ammo-one.com/221560STEV.html

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I have also dipped into John J. Donnelly's "Handloader's Manual of Cartridge Conversions". He describes soldering tubing onto either specially made heads, or heads from existing cartridges which were turned down (if there is enough wall thickness to allow a half-inch or so length of contact.) I would want the head to have rather more metal in the solid head and wall than all-drawn case usually does, especially if free-turning brass was used. But I can't see that it wouldn't work with turned cartridge brass. A rough finish on the part to be soldered is all to the good.

Donnelly recommends Brookstone S-01590 solder, with a tensile strength of 25,000 psi. I don't think either the company or the catalogue number still exist. But he mentions a 430 Fahrenheit melting point which is the same as the tin and lead solder which has become much more common in food and drinking water applications in recent years.

Note that as I said in post 29, there is no direct connection between pressure psi and solder psi. That half-inch of hollow wall on the head will cause gas pressure to press the parts together. Donnelly recommends the technique for black powder, Pyrodex or light to medium charges of powder like 4198. But a .22WRM-sized round could be an extremely good small game one with such loads.

In this website 230 Centigrade 430 Fahrenheit for the 96.5% tin, 3.5% silver alloy which your local plumber's merchant is sure to have, with the best flux. A eutectic alloy means the combination of constituents which will go straight from solid to liquid and vice versa, without an intervening pasty phase, which is a big help in getting it to flow.

http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2377

Donnelly suggests heating the case on a hotplate rather than with a torch, to reach flowing temperature without excessive annealing. If those are red-hot coiled rings I would prefer to interpose a thick metal plate, or use an oven or electric heat gun.

He also illustrates the Steelhead cases, and says they were made by the O'Connor Rifle Company, in 06 and Magnum sizes only. They are certainly no longer on the market, but something similar might be useful. The brass part was annealed all over, and screwed inside, not over, the stainless steel head. It is just a question whether we could get away with work hardened brass screwed over the head, but external plus annealed sounds like an impossible combination.

The normal rule with cylindrical pressure vessels is that the smaller they are, the more pressure a given wall thickness will stand. I don't think you can apply this rule with cartridge cases. When they are small, a .001in. expansion, say, produces a greater circumferential stretching in a small tube than a large one.

[EDG]

I have "reloaded" the .22 WMR after a fashion in search of better accuracy. My rifle is a Mossberg 640 from some time in the 1960s or 1970s.

My method was:
1. Pull the Winchester FMJ bullets
2. Weigh the powder charges and determine the average for recharging the case
3. Resize the case mouths
4. Expand the case mouths
5. Recharge the cases
6. Seat the new bullets

The bullets that I used were Sierra 40 and 45 grn Hornet semi-points
I used the original factory powder charge with both bullets.
I seated both bullets out as far as I could while leaving about .150 bullet length in the case. This was to put the ogive closer to the origin of the rifling.

I checked the expansion of fired cases. The cases were miked about .100 head of the rims. The 40 grn Sierra gave about the same CASE expansion as the factory bullets. Factory ammo expanded the cases about .001. The 45 grain bullet expanded the case about .003.
Groups were much improved from about 3" with the factory WW FMJ at 100 yards down to about 1.5" to 1.75" with the Sierra bullets. Not match quality at all but I also tested factory Federal 50 grain bullets and they grouped 4" or worse.

I feel like this round is in NO way fit to make a centerfire using the factory chamber. The brass simply does not have the strength. I don't really think the .22 Hornet brass has the strength either unless you are going to load reduced loads. Minimum brass for .22 cal might be .30 Carbine, .32 H&R, .218 Bee or similar and none of these are a lot smaller than the .375 diameter head of the plentiful .223 brass.

However if you proceed be aware of the difference in size between the SAAMI cartridge chamber drawings and the cartridge drawings. The difference between the two is pretty sloppy and there is a loooooong jump from the length of factory ammo to the start of the rifling. With my rifle it was about .200.
The excessive diametral clearance gave room for the cases to expand .003 mentioned above.

[turtlezx]

you gotta love sierra bullets . can make a big difference in many guns

[leftiye]

The issue with turned down 22 Hornet brass isn't the hardness of the brass. The brass will take any pressure up to about 60,000 psi without flowing. The thin walls of the primer pocket will probly allow the brass to stretch way before any appreciable pressure is reached - if the chamber is loose. Stretching is another animal than flowing.

[Chev. William]

!. 5.7x28mm brass can be Formed down to the Top of rim by supporting the Primer pocket during the Forming step.
2. Using a nominal .012" down size (from .312 to nominal .300" the Actual downsizing was to .303" in my Personal Experiments.

I have been using 3 stage down sizing to get Case and head diameter from .312" to .276" successfully for about 600 cases so far. The rims are NOT resized in the downsizing process.

My technique is listed in threads on this Forum relating to: .32 Rimfire case replacements; .25 Stevens Case replacements/.250ALRM/.250ALS case forming; and 6.35x32mmSR/6.35x28.6mmSR.
The 6.35 series is based upon the 5.7 brass and the .250 series is based upon .22 Hornet Brass.
Yes IT IS doable IF you plan to use a Rimed or Semi rimmed final Case design, and the .22WMR IS a Rimmed Design.

You should do a Chamber Cast of your .22WMR chamber Before you work in a Case development, I will Bet your chamber is Tapered rather than Cylindrical. a Revolver Cylinder might have a parallel wall chamber; so a Revolver chamber reamer might be the "ticket" for your Development Rifle chamber but remember you may have to use a rod from the Muzzle to extract your Empties.

I note Marlin used two opposite 'extractors' of different shape to extract .22WMR cases form their Model 57M rifles the Extractor tips had two angle cuts on the Back of the Barrel for their tips to ride up on and the Rim front sat flush with the End of the Barrel and in a Pocket on the front of the Bolt body block.
The right hand extractor had flat face to engage the Rim edge; the Left extractor had a angled face to engage the Rim and released the rim when the case hit the Ejector stop.

.22WMR has a listed body diameter of .242" subtracting small Primer diameter of .175" yields a double wall of .067, or a single wall of .0335"; about 2.5 times the Wall thickness at the top of web for the 5.7 Parent Brass.

.312" body diameter of 5.7 parent brass minus .242" of nominal .22WMR case yields .070" of diameter reduction required. Assuming .009" effective reduction per step of sizing process indicates about eight Steps involved to form the Brass down to size to avoid forming loses.
I expect there will be a 'roll' of displaced Brass pushed down to the top of the Rim which will require turning to remove.
The interior of the Case will also contract and I expect the Wall will end up thicker than .013" at the Web. And yes you will need to re-drill the flash holes as they Will contract in the forming process.
I re-drill Flash holes to about .078" (5/64" drill) on my Reformed cases.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[leftiye]

How about sizing the case to the front of the head (web), and then turning the head down so as to not deform the primer pockets, and to not overharden the heads.

[oldred]

!. 5.7x28mm brass can be Formed down to the Top of rim by supportin gthe Primer pocket during the Forming step.
2. using a nominal .012" down size (from .312 to nominal .300" the Actual downsizing was to .303" in my Personal Experiments.

I have been using 3 stage down sizing to get Case and head diameter form .312" to .276" successfully for about 600 cases so far. The rims are NOT resized in the downsizing process.

My technique is listed in threads on this Forum relating to: .32 Rimfire case replacements; .25 Stevens Case replacements/.250ALRM/.250ALS case forming; and 6.35mmx32SR/6.35x28.6mmSR.
The 6.35 series is based upon the 5.7 brass and the .250 series is based upon .22 Hornet Brass.
Yes IT IS doable IF you plan to use a Rimed or Semi rimmed final Case design, and the .22WMR IS a Rimmed Design.

You should do a Chamber Cast of your .22WMR chamber Before you work in a Case development, I will Bet your chamber is Tapered rather than Cylindrical. a Revolver Cylinder might have a parallel wall chamber; so a Revolver chamber reamer might be the "ticket" for your Development Rifle chamber but remember you my have to use a rod from the Muzzle to extract your Empties.

I note Marlin used two opposite 'extractors' of different shape to extract .22WMR cases form their Model 57M rifles the Extractor tips had two angle cuts on the Back of the Barrel for their tips to ride up on and the Rim front sat flush with the End of the Barrel and in a Pocket on the front of the Bolt body block.
The right hand extractor had flat face to engage the Rim edge; the Left extractor had a angled face to engage the Rim and released the rim when the case hit the Ejector stop.

.22WMR has a listed body diameter of .242" subtracting small Primer diameter of .175" yields a double wall of .067, or a single wall of .0335"; about 2.5 times the Wall thickness at the top of web for the 5.7 Parent Brass.

.312" body diameter of 5.7 parent brass minus .242" of nominal .22WMR case yields .070" of diameter reduction required. Assuming .009" effective reduction per step of sizing process indicates about eight Steps involved to form the Brass down to size to avoid forming loses.
I expect there will be a 'roll' of displaced Brass pushed down to the top of the Rim which will require turning to remove.
The interior of the Case will also contract and I expect the Wall will end up thicker than .013" at the Web. And yes you will need to re-drill the flash holes as they Will contract in the forming process.
I re-drill Flash holes to about .078" (5/64" drill) on my Reformed cases.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

Thanks for that! Due to a rather nasty case of flu the past couple of weeks I have not been able to do as much as I had planned and now because of a scheduled transmission rebuild project on an antique tractor that we finally got parts for I am going to have to postpone this project for a couple of weeks, as the old saying goes I just have too many irons in the fire right now.

What I found with the 5.7 cases pretty much agrees with what you are saying and I too think they can be made to work, looking at the sectioned cases I experimented with I think they really do need some material removed inside in the web area in order to increase capacity. I sectioned an unmodified case first to determine how far down I should size it to just start rolling the web in at the top so after turning the area there would not be so thin as to be weak nor so thick as to waste powder space, my next step when I get back to this project is going to be to compare some Hornet cases to see if they can be formed with less time and effort, at this point I suspect they can. Have you tried Hornet cases? Would the 5.7 cases be better and worth the (suspected?) extra effort? I am thinking that the Hornet might not, or might also, require material to be removed inside around the web area for powder capacity????

In any case thanks again you have both confirmed some things I suspected and verified a few things I had tried, I am anxious to get this tractor project out of the way (and out of my shop!) so I can continue with this case development.

[Chev. William]

"How about sizing the case to the front of the head (web), and then turning the head down so as to not deform the primer pockets, and to not overharden the heads."

That MIGHT work IF, and only IF, you do not form a "Knuckle" in the Wall to Web junction.

If you do form the "Knuckle", then machine the Base you will have an automatic weak spot where the Wall and Web join, leading to premature Case head Separations.

It would be better to have a Overly Strong (work hardened) head that does not have to expand to fill a oversize Chamber than a Case head Separation generating Weak spot so the Case head can Expand in an 'over size' Chamber.

The First 5.7 case I experimented with, I tried single step Forming from .312" diameter to .276" diameter; the Case Failed on First Inspection as it had a "Knuckle" both inside and outside and the inside 'knuckle' was feel-able with a Bent Paper clip like is used to inspect for case wall Thinning in cases subject to 'stretching' when fired.
Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

Thanks for that! Due to a rather nasty case of flu the past couple of weeks I have not been able to do as much as I had planned and now because of a scheduled transmission rebuild project on an antique tractor that we finally got parts for I am going to have to postpone this project for a couple of weeks, as the old saying goes I just have too many irons in the fire right now.

What I found with the 5.7 cases pretty much agrees with what you are saying and I too think they can be made to work, looking at the sectioned cases I experimented with I think they really do need some material removed inside in the web area in order to increase capacity. I sectioned an unmodified case first to determine how far down I should size it to just start rolling the web in at the top so after turning the area there would not be so thin as to be weak nor so thick as to waste powder space, my next step when I get back to this project is going to be to compare some Hornet cases to see if they can be formed with less time and effort, at this point I suspect they can. Have you tried Hornet cases? Would the 5.7 cases be better and worth the (suspected?) extra effort? I am thinking that the Hornet might not, or might also, require material to be removed inside around the web area for powder capacity????

In any case thanks again you have both confirmed some things I suspected and verified a few things I had tried, I am anxious to get this tractor project out of the way (and out of my shop!) so I can continue with this case development.

Yes i have formed .276" diameter x 1.380" long cases from .22 Hornet cases using a single step sizing but it takes a Lot of "effort": I have to stand up and lean with BOTH arms on the Handle of my RCBS "RC" press to force the Hornet into the Lee Carbide .25ACP sizing die. Any Pause in the Forming Stroke has resulted in a 'ruined' case as the Wall will Fail by Bellows Deformation if you stop and restart the Forming Pass.
As is, My "Yield of Hornet to .250ALRx 'parent cases' is about 95 percent over 600 cases formed.
at the same time, my yield of 5.7 to 6.35x32 'parent cases' is 100 percent over 800 cases formed.
My Raw Case costs are:
For New PPU .22 Hornet, about $32.00 per Hundred.
For Once fired 5.7x28mm, about $80.00 per Thousand.

My tooling costs are already 'amortized' as i only buy tools when I have 'Disposable income" over My Living Expenses as I am a Retired (mostly) 73 year old Disabled Veteran who is still listed with my Union dispatcher for Work Calls; of which I had 11 days of work in 2015, and 3 days in 2014.

Currently I am working on a Replacement Truck for one That was Declared 'Totaled' by my Insurance Carrier (due to a 6 vehicle Freeway accident on December 5th Last year).

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

The easiest source of Cartridge and Chamber Dimensions seems to be the CIP Site at "http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-v/22-win-mag-rf-en.pdf" as SAAMI seems to require Internet Explorer To access Their Documents and I don't use it often (I have An old computer with MS Windows XP Pro running, Still).
The CIP Drawing Says the Minimum Chamber is .2429+" diameter so it could get much larger I expect.
Work Hardening the Area of the Primer pocket does Increase the Strength but does also reduce the Elastic Deformation limit of the Hardened Brass. Seems like a 'Tight Chamber Would be Preferred for this .22WMR Center fire experiment.
The Rim to Wall Junction I expect should be a Radius like is done with the RF Rim so as to not Thin the Primer Pocket Wall from a Extractor clearance Groove Undercut.
Additionally, the Primer pocket Wall of .0335" is Greater than the .22WMR Case Wall Thickness (about .015") so would be Stronger in tension, for extracting, than the RF case.

This is an Intriguing Project But I am Well Involved with my own 6.35 and.250 projects at this time so I will not be doing any physical experiments toward the proposed .22WMR Center Fire Project Development at this time.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Willbird]

Well as long as the 6 chambers, or however many are involved (might only be one) the brass can be machined to fit nicely :-).

Bill

[leftiye]

On mine the cases go into the chambers with some pushing required. I suscpect that this might define a minimum chamber, and help in supporting the case head. As mentioned, I believe that plastic deformation limits are what is important as the primer pocket walls are so thin that they will stretch if allowed to.

[rbuck351]

I have made a few center fire 22mag cases from 5.7x28. I start by turning the rim to .295 then turn the section from the front of the rim to .125 forward of the rim down to .242. Then I push it base first through a .296 die I made. Then push it front first into progressively smaller dies to where it leaves a bit of a lump just forward of the .242 solid base with the front of the case now .242 or a bit smaller. Then machine the lump off to .242. Now I trim the case in the lathe to 1.055 length then drill the inside of the neck to .221 to a depth I want the boolit seated. Now I prime and load the case with 1.2grs of BE and force a hard .225 48gr boolit in the neck which bulges the neck. I finish the bulge off to .242 and fire form. Now drilling out the inside of the case with a #5 drill will leave walls a bit thicker than 22mag but still give plenty of room for powder. Not having loading dies, I just reprime with punches and thumb push a boolit to the step left inside the neck. I haven't worked up a load yet but have gone as high as 1.7grs of BE which pushes the 48gr boolit through 3" of semi dry Birch. I'm now going to make a batch of cases instead of taking a half hour to make one case because of all the tool switching and experimenting. Oh, I have ruined a couple dozen cases trying to get this to work. Still have to test for accuracy and velocity but it does work and there are lots of 5.7x28 cases left at the range where I shoot.

[gunguychuck]

Just get a 22 Hornet.

[victorfox]

This is not what you want but I think it's cool anyway. http://www.cartridgecollector.net/22-long-rifle-centre-fire . I'm having crazy ideas...

[victorfox]

Do western scrounger have this? http://www.cartridgecollector.net/22-maynard-mod1882-22-extra-long

[rbuck351]

Got a Hornet and 2 K Hornets already. Making 22centerfire mags gives you a very efficient CF 22 that is interchangeable with 22mag in a TC and has a much stronger case. Besides, tinkering with this kind of thing is fun. If doing this was business related it would make no sense at all. As a hobby, I get a great deal of pleasure putzing on my lathe making tools and working out ways to test ideas. I probably have 30 hrs in making tools and trying different things to make a simple straight wall case.
To top it off, I don't have an actual barrel for the TC in 22mag. I took a 22mag barrel I had and turned it to a barrel insert for a 44mag barrel I have for the TC. I like unique stuff and usually you have to make things yourself to get truly unique things.

[SSGOldfart]

Oldred hope your transmission project is going well,I'm very interested in this 22mag CF project
I to shoot the TC in most 22 calibers,but we have a number of 22Magnums and want to produce reloadable ammo with out modifying the rifle. I've spent most of my free time in the last 30 years looking for a fix for the 25Stevens Rimfire to. you would think a major ammo Mfg would pick up these ideas for center fire,to replace rimfire ammo. There is a great deal of guns that need replacement ammo.:bigsmyl2:Please keep the wheels turning on this idea.
Bob

[Chev. William]

Comments added in Bold Typeface in line in the Quoted Text.


I have made a few center fire 22mag cases from 5.7x28. I start by turning the rim to .295 then turn the section from the front of the rim to .125 forward of the rim down to .242. What Shell holder fits the Revised Case?
Then I push it base first through a .296 die I made. What size Punch do you use to push the Case 'Base First through your .296" die?
Then push it front first into progressively smaller dies to where it leaves a bit of a lump just forward of the .242 solid base with the front of the case now .242 or a bit smaller. Then machine the lump off to .242.
Now I trim the case in the lathe to 1.055 length then drill the inside of the neck to .221 to a depth I want the boolit seated. Please describe how you hold the Rim end in your Lathe without deforming the rim or case.
Now I prime and load the case with 1.2grs of BE and force a hard .225 48gr boolit in the neck which bulges the neck. I finish the bulge off to .242 and fire form. This sounds like you are Turning the Outside Case to .242 after inserting the 'Boolit'. how concentric are your turned 'Necks" coming out?
Now drilling out the inside of the case with a #5 drill [.2055"; a #4 is .2090", a #3 is .2130" and a #2 is .2210". have you tried any of these size drills in you experiments?] will leave walls a bit thicker than 22mag but still give plenty of room for powder. Not having loading dies, I just reprime with punches and thumb push a boolit to the step left inside the neck. I haven't worked up a load yet but have gone as high as 1.7grs of BE which pushes the 48gr boolit through 3" of semi dry Birch. I'm now going to make a batch of cases instead of taking a half hour to make one case because of all the tool switching and experimenting. Oh, I have ruined a couple dozen cases trying to get this to work. Still have to test for accuracy and velocity but it does work and there are lots of 5.7x28 cases left at the range where I shoot. Lucky you, I have to buy mine as my Local Public commercial range keeps "abandoned brass" for sorting and use by range personnel.

A Very good summary of your successful experimental process. Please Expand it to answer the Questions I included.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[victorfox]

Anyone else wants pics too?

[rbuck351]

I haven't found a shell holder that fit the new case although the 5.7 would probably work for resizing. I only have about .001 neck clearance to chamber on the loaded round so resizing doesn't appear to be needed. for a punch I'm using a pin punch .187 from auto zone to push them base first for the first step down. after that they are pushed neck first into progressive smaller dies to the rim, then punched back out.
My three jaw chuck has grooves cut into the jaws at the part that touches the work about every 1/4". With the rim at one of the grooves the rim doesn't touch the jaw.
Although this probably isn't the best way to thin the neck, they are coming out plus or minus about .001 at about .011 neck thickness. I tried the #2 and ended up screwing up several cases. Not sure why but I think the drill needs sharpened differently.
I only had 6 or 7 cases to play with so went to the public range and found a couple hundred so now I'm not afraid to try anything I can think of. I'm now working on streamlining the process and making better dies.

[Chev. William]

RE: Drill Bit and Sharpening; Yes, a Drill Bit sharpened for Steel will dig in and grab Brass/Copper.

The exact geometry is probably available in a copy of "Machinery Handbook", the "bible of Machinists" for many Decades.

My Late Wife "Cleaned up" my home office and I have not found where She stored my copies (I had several different editions from near the beginning though about the !980's).
Some data has Changed over They ears, especially information on Pre-Standardized Screw and Bolt thread dimensions.

RE: Pin Punch; the .187 pin punch I would think would need a radius on the 'working 'end to prevent "gouging' the inside Web to Wall fillet and possibly some thinning to clear th eReducing diameter of the lower Wall as the outside is swaged down. I found in my Swaging down to .276, the Pin Punch Tip had to be tapered to around .175" diameter at the tip and the tip end edge made in a radius so it would not Jam in the Case.


Best Regards,
Chev. William

[rbuck351]

On the initial push through at about .296 the .187 works ok. I haven't smoothed up all the little details yet but yeah , a radius on the end of the punches would probably be a good idea. When I start further sizing down I go to a smalled punch. I push them in a die until the rim hits and then punch them back out. I'm not too concerned about the case walls being a bit thicker than 22mag and the lower case volume from the base and primer as the case should be quite a bit stronger than a 22mag and I think I can just step the pressure up a bit in the TC and make up the velocity with a bit more pressure. I don't know yet and the wife has put a stop to my experiments. I retire June 1 and hope to be in Montana by July 1 where I will have a range in the front yard. What I found to be the worst part of this is figuring out how far forward of the rim to turn the case so there is enough material just forward of the web to push in without being too thick or too thin. If you go a bit too far forward the case will snap off at the head wall junction. A bit short and the pressure of trying to swage the head gets extreme. Just a bit of case head swaging in appears to be the way to go. About .125 ahead of the rim is close but may not be perfect. Any longer doesn't work but .005/.010 shorter may be better. Still experimenting. I tried annealing one but it just squished out a lump at the head wall junction.

[Chev. William]

If you mean you tried Annealing the Head, I agree it is not a good Idea as there is not enough remaining 'working ' of the area to re-harden it. Brass only "hardens" through working it to change the grain Structure to finer / harder size form Larger/ softer grain size.

My own processes for .25 Stevens size cases works the Head with the Primer cup supported with a 'punch tip' and pushing the case into the die mouth first. I also drive the swaged case back out with a punch and hammer. on NEW, unfired, PPU Hornet brass I could swage them down in one pass if I did not Stop and used a lot of force (standing up and using both arms and my body weight on the RCBS "RC" press handle). If I paused any where in the press Stroke the remaining case would "bellows deform" which made that a 'lost case' as there is no way to recover form the over stressed Brass wall afer it forms in to a 'bellows'.

Forming 5.7x28 into "parent cases for .25 Stevens size cartridges Did Not Work as a single stage swage for me. it seems the 'once fired' cases have been further work hardened and even Standing and most of my body weight would not swage the Head area, I guess going from .316" down to .276" in one pass is way too much for the FNB Brass I buy. I found that three steps were the Minimum to get it done, and possibly four steps would be better.

Going from .316" to .242" is, of Course, even more difficult. Your Idea of turning part of the head down to .242" diameter seems to avoid most of the head swage effort but as you say, how high to turn the head is a Problem to determine. I would suggest making a new .296" form die with a radius mouth tapered entry leading to the.296" cylindrical section and running the case to be formed in mouth first instead of base first. i think the radius and taper would form the Wall and upper web in longitudinal compression rather than tension, reducing the chance of forming a weak junction or possible separation. Also is your turned down head area ended with a Taper or a Square face to the 'top' of the cut?

i hope this gives you some ideas.
Best Regards,
Chev. Willaim

[rbuck351]

My initial .296 swag die is tapered from about .310 to .296. Pushing them through base first seems to use less effort but it's hard to tell for sure as I'm using a 12ton hydraulic press. My thinking is it tends to bend the brass in at the head wall junction rather than just pushing it sideways but I have no proof to support that idea. I have tried both a taper cut and a square face cut but can't see much difference. I have been using a second swag die at about .250 but I'm thinking a mid step at about .270 would help, then .250 then .242 or possibly.240/.241 then fireform. When I get back at this, I think I will section cases at each step to see better what is actually happening. I have been using STP as a swag lube and it seems to work well. Anyway, I appreciate all the ideas folks are throwing out

[leftiye]

When making .22 CCM into .22 magnum centerfire I chuck on the case mouth. First I insert a steel rod (analogous to a pin gauge that force (push) fits into the case mouth to allow gripping the case. I also use a live center in the tailstock that push fits into the primer pocket. Also I use a gauge that fits around the case (made from another case) to chuck it up in a consistent length. The .22 CCM is made by Schroeder in San Diego for about $.60 each.

[Chev. William]

When making .22 CCM into .22 magnum centerfire I chuck on the case mouth. First I insert a steel rod (analogous to a pin gauge that force (push) fits into the case mouth to allow gripping the case. I also use a live center in the tailstock that push fits into the primer pocket. Also I use a gauge that fits around the case (made from another case) to chuck it up in a consistent length. The .22 CCM is made by Schroeder in San Diego for about $.60 each.

Starting with .22CCM cases at ~$0.60 each is "WOW!". I think my budget would 'Blow it's Gaskets' if i tried working on such expensive cases.

That being said, I am curious as to what you are doing to the.22CCM case to make it into a .22Magnum center fire case.

Please Expand your explanation.
Best Regards,
Chev. William

[leftiye]

All you have to change is to run the case into a die the right size up to the web (I don't remember, but the .22 mag is only a few thou - about .005" - smaller than the .22 CCM at the head), then put the pin into the case and take off whatever is still bigger than desired - mainly the head and rim down to specs. I use a setup with two micrometer dials against the carriage and specs at zero. Take the cut at crosswise zero until the lengthwise one zeroes out (this also thins the rim) then retract the crosswise to spec and cut the rim diameter. Move the carriage back to start position and load the next case. As I mentioned above, there is a 1/2 sleeve that fits over the case to position it for length in the collet chuck (and then pulls off).

I don't have a .22 CCM. But when it came time to get serious I had a .22 mag. cylinder for a Kframe and an 8 3/8" barrel for same. Put them on a model 14 and ran around in circles giggling. Same for the rifle - .22 mag contender barrel, switch the firing pin to centerfire. I had 200 of these Shroeder .22 CCM cases, so I just started modifying them.

[leftiye]

I don't think it would be too much harder to take .22 Hornet cases and do the same thing to them (use the live center to center on the primer pocket) in a series of cutting down steps to make either .22 CCM or .22 mag centerfire cases. Maybe first open the case mouths to straight(er) cases first so that a better grip could be had (with pin gauge inside case mouth).

[Chev. William]

Without swaging the Head diameter down some, or all the way to .242", i would be worried about the Web to Wall junction. Hornet Walls just above the Radius at he Web is about .013' to .014' thick.
A Hornet case is about .295" outside diameter at about the top of the web. Turning that to .242" means taking off .053" total or ~.026' per side.
the idea of turning only a portion of the head down and swaging the rest sounds a lot better.

Best Regards,
Chev. Willaim

[leftiye]

Size the junction as far as you can into the web. You should be able to run into the sizer past the start of the web.

[rbuck351]

I'm not cutting up my Hornet brass for any reason but if I was trying to use Hornet brass I would try to swag .020 or a bit more
down into the head. Swaging one before turning some of the head just in front of the rim and one after. Then section both and see which looks better. However my cheapskate nature prevents me from cutting up uncommon brass that I use for something else especially when I would have to buy more to replace it. I'll have to check to see if I have any with cracked or munched necks. That's more or less what I'm doing with the 5.7x28 brass

[Chev. William]

I'm not cutting up my Hornet brass for any reason but if I was trying to use Hornet brass I would try to swag .020 or a bit more
down into the head. Swaging one before turning some of the head just in front of the rim and one after. Then section both and see which looks better. However my cheapskate nature prevents me from cutting up uncommon brass that I use for something else especially when I would have to buy more to replace it. I'll have to check to see if I have any with cracked or munched necks. That's more or less what I'm doing with the 5.7x28 brass

My experiments with Hornet Brass have been with primarily new PPU purchased at about $32 per 100 cases, or about $0.32 Each, Lately I did buy 100 Hornady new Hornet Brass for $52, or $052 each. They came in 'pretty Shrink Wrapped "Christmas Color" packaging, I only opened one so far to look at the content.

I have Bought 5.7x28mm FNB "once fired" brass from "Monmouth Brass" for $56 and $80 a bag of 1000, or $0.08 each or less. This is 'Raw' range Pickup at indoor Ranges so it comes with expended Primers and the Polymer coating intact. Decapping, I find is a good 'sorting step for base damage as the firearms that are used sometimes raise 'burrs' on the rims that block their entry into my shell holder. I set those aside for 'deburring' and later decapping.

The Hornet resizing process I have used is a Single Stage swage of the Expanded case using a Stock Lee Carbide Ring Sizing Die in my RCBS "RC press with a "Ammomaster II" ball end lengthened Handle, which takes me standing and using both arms to apply my body weight to the Ball end and doing the Sizing in one continuous movement until the rim touches the mouth of the Die. I Think with these new Hornet cases I am going to try using a Two Step post expansion swageing process to see if the force required per stem is less without raising the Loss rate ( currently about 5% of attempted Reforming Hornet cases).

As to the 5.7x28mm reforming, I find first step is decapping , then Expanding the 'Neck and Shoulder' with a .2500" diameter punch, and then at least three Step swaging process gives 100% yield of finished "6.35x32mmSR" brass, still with most of the Polymer Coating intact.
Saves needing to lube the cases before sizing.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

I have been 'learning "QuickDesign" software and I worked up a ".22WMCF" design, the Cartridge '.pdf' file is Below:

167207

And the Data sheet '.pdf' file is below:

167208

This is Based upon the CIP data for the 5.7x28mm and SAAMI info for the .22WMR. Basically "Swaging" the case diameter down and trimming the Rim diameter.

What do the Readers think of this design?

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[rbuck351]

I haven't tried that yet as I was afraid the pressure required to swag the solid head would distort the primer pocket badly. I guess I should though. Worst thing that could happen is to wreck a few more cases. I've been having fair luck making the outside dimensions of the case but when I go to drill out the inside of the case to .218 it leaves a weak spot at the case head wall junction. I'm going to try stopping the drill before it gets to that junction or not turning the head to .242 quite so far up the case basically swaging a bit more of the head.

[leftiye]

I try to size (swage) the walls up into the head past the curved section just in front of the web before turning. I think that transfers the thicker curved part into the walls. I'm with you about not sizing the whole case head. You could use a special formed expander die before turning to thin the sidewalls rather than drilling.

[Chev. William]

I haven't tried that yet as I was afraid the pressure required to swag the solid head would distort the primer pocket badly. I guess I should though. Worst thing that could happen is to wreck a few more cases. I've been having fair luck making the outside dimensions of the case but when I go to drill out the inside of the case to .218 it leaves a weak spot at the case head wall junction. I'm going to try stopping the drill before it gets to that junction or not turning the head to .242 quite so far up the case basically swaging a bit more of the head.

RCBS makes a 'Primer Pocket Swaging Kit' that I use to support the Primer pocket when I Swage case heads down to the Rim. I found that the 'Small Pocket Punch' covered with the 'Stripper Cup' and topped with a '3/16" I.D. Fender Washer' holds the Pocket diameter and depth constant while the head is squeezed down to desired size.

If I remember correctly the kits cost around $60 from Midway.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

I try to size (swage) the walls up into the head past the curved section just in front of the web before turning. I think that transfers the thicker curved part into the walls. I'm with you about not sizing the whole case head. You could use a special formed expander die before turning to thin the sidewalls rather than drilling.

leftiye,
That would be a matched die and punch combination and would be equivalent to a 'Draw Punch/Die pair' in effect. E.g.: holding the Outside Diameter constant while forcing the internal wall diameter to expand, hopefully causing the displaced metal to move to lengthen the case instead of forming a 'Ridge' in the case interior.

Best Regards,
chev. Willaim

[Michael J. Spangler]

Someone with a spare 32 or 38 cylinder could make an awesome 22 with some ideas from this article.

http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/310/357-44_Bain_Davis/Guns_Ammo_MAR_1979.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leftiye]

leftiye,
That would be a matched die and punch combination and would be equivalent to a 'Draw Punch/Die pair' in effect. E.g.: holding the Outside Diameter constant while forcing the internal wall diameter to expand, hopefully causing the displaced metal to move to lengthen the case instead of forming a 'Ridge' in the case interior.

Best Regards,
chev. Willaim

No, you force the shaped (to your desire) internal expander into the case, then turn off the extra thickness where ever it exists with a straight pass.

[rbuck351]

Lots of ideas being presented but I'm in the middle of a move from Ak to Mt and wont be doing much with this for a while. keep at it someone will come up with the best way to do this. I all ready have the rcbs primer pocket swag so I might try that as well. Good luck

[Chev. William]

Has anyone looked at the files I included in post #92 of this thread?

I am Hoping for comments and Suggestions.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[rbuck351]

I think that is what we are all trying to do with the main problem being swaging the body of a 5.7x28 down far enough to finish the outside to .242 without breaking the case off at the case head/wall junction. At least that's been my biggest problem and although I have a few more ideas to try my move from AK to MT is taking all my time. I'm forced to put this on a back burner for a while.

[Chev. William]

Here is a photo illustrating my tooling to swage 5.7x28mm down to .276" body diameter all the way to the rim.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz316/chevwilliam/6%2035%20and%206%2052%20Variants%20on%205%207x28mm %20Brass%20Cases/688b8f0d-fdc7-418f-a825-e69878c8e419_zpsb7of6r1e.jpg

a photo of my Press and the RCBS Primer pocket Punch, stripper cup and the fender washer i use.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz316/chevwilliam/25%20Stevens%20Family%20Cartridges%20Development/20140407_Pictures006crop_zps496093f8.jpg

Obviously taking the resized cases from .276" body diameter down to .242" body diameter will need more Stages of swaging, OR much more Powerful and Faster Swaging Press and punch/die sets, to get the parent case to the desired diameter with acceptable yield of finished cases.

My opinion presently is that taking the head down by swaging is going to make the head harder and therefore Stronger to resist primer pocket 'stretch' in firing. The rim, not being subjected to the same amount of work hardening, should stay 'springy' instead of 'brittle' in the bending load of extraction.

Machining the Base to reduce the amount of swaging may also work but it is something I have no experience with.

Again, my opinion is that the Primer Pocket Must Be supported in any Head Swaging operations.

Best Regards,
Chev. William

Added 20180319:
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz316/chevwilliam/250ALxx%20Family%20Cartridge%20project/c8fe7e32-b369-477c-956d-726b177c4396_zpszp8ajiqx.jpg
Left to Right: .25ACP @.905" OAL; .25ALR @1.293" OAL; .25 Magnum Auto. @.1.366" OAL; .25ALS @ 1.407" OAL. All With .250" sized Hornady #2510 60 grain Jacketed Soft Flat Point Bullet.
Note: .25ACP Case Length = .612"; .25ALR Case Length = .960"; .25 Magnum Auto. Case Length = 1.055"; .25ALS Case Length = 1.125".
Note: .25ACP rim diameter is .304" adn 5.7x28mm parent rime diameter is .307".
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

The thread 'Bullshop .22CCM' discussed the Cooper Centerfire Magnum .224" bullet diameter cartridge which is similar to this discussion. The latest Post on that thread includes a "URL" for a man in San Deago that makes the Cases from .22 Hornet brass in supposedly 14 steps.

http://www.custombrassandbullets.com/scbu.html

Best Regards,
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

Buffalo Arms, Inc. is now selling empty .22CCM cases for reloading use.

Much easier to use than Swaging down 5.7x28mm to the same diameters, but not cheap to buy.
Chev. William

[Chev. William]

My Order of 20 each 22CCM cases (from Buffalo Arms) arrived and they match the Drawing dimensions and have 'Hornady .22 Hornet' residual Head Stamps (about 1/3 removed when the rim diameter was turned down).
Very well done from appearances.
Chev. William

[NoZombies]

My Order of 20 each 22CCM cases (from Buffalo Arms) arrived and they match the Drawing dimensions and have 'Hornady .22 Hornet' residual Head Stamps (about 1/3 removed when the rim diameter was turned down).
Very well done from appearances.
Chev. William

As I mentioned in the thread about .22 CCM, there are two other makers who offer the brass that I know of; Reed's ammo (also a member here BTW) and Schroeder. They both charge considerable less for their 22 CCM brass than does buffalo arms.

I have nothing against buffalo arms, I just can't see paying 3-5X as much for the same brass (they probably buy from Schroeder)

[Chev. William]

I have not found .22CCM on 'Reeds' Website, perhaps I just missed them.
I have had no luck finding contact info for Schroeder in the past.

Would you please repost the contact info or web addresses for both?

[NoZombies]

I have not found .22CCM on 'Reeds' Website, perhaps I just missed them.
I have had no luck finding contact info for Schroeder in the past.

Would you please repost the contact info or web addresses for both?


Sure thing, Here's Reed's:
https://shop.reedsammo.com/22-Cooper-Centerfire-Magnum-CCM-Brass-22CCMBrass.htm

And I don't think Schroeder has a website, but his phone # is 619-423-3523

[deltaenterprizes]

There is also a round called .22 Velo Dog that is just about what you are looking for but I think it is obsolete.

Tim
I have been looking for some Velodog brass and have not found any!

[Chev. William]

I have been looking for some Velodog brass and have not found any!

Try searching European ammo makers European sites as it is not normally Exported to the USA. i think Fiocchi or S&B make a run of it occasionally.
CIP 5,75 Velo dog Pistol cartridge Standard drawing:
http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-iv/tabivcal-en-page3.pdf

Chev. William

[reed1911]

We are working on the velodog....

[rbuck351]

I finally got back to this project and have managed to make a few cases from 5.7x28 that work. I'm still not sure it's worth the effort but it can be done. I start by turning the case at a 3 degree angle from the shoulder to the rim. This closely follows the taper of the inner side of the case wall and leaves the case head at about .252. I then size the case body in ten separate steps with step 3 having a 5 degree taper on the bottom which swages the body and just a bit of the head. The next several steps stop just at the body head junction until the body dia is .244 which fits my chamber snugly. Back in the lathe to turn the head to .244 and trim to length. Then size the neck inside to .223 with an M die and back in the lathe to neck turn to .244. I do the sizing on a press and a punch to knock the cases out of the dies to keep from breaking the rim off when removing cases from the dies. I've destroyed about 50 cases trying to make this work and I still haven't fired them enough to know how long they will last nor figured out a max load.

[Chev. William]

I finally got back to this project and have managed to make a few cases from 5.7x28 that work. I'm still not sure it's worth the effort but it can be done. I start by turning the case at a 3 degree angle from the shoulder to the rim. This closely follows the taper of the inner side of the case wall and leaves the case head at about .252. I then size the case body in ten separate steps with step 3 having a 5 degree taper on the bottom which swages the body and just a bit of the head. The next several steps stop just at the body head junction until the body dia is .244 which fits my chamber snugly. Back in the lathe to turn the head to .244 and trim to length. Then size the neck inside to .223 with an M die and back in the lathe to neck turn to .244. I do the sizing on a press and a punch to knock the cases out of the dies to keep from breaking the rim off when removing cases from the dies. I've destroyed about 50 cases trying to make this work and I still haven't fired them enough to know how long they will last nor figured out a max load.

Rbuck351,
Your description of your process to get from .314" body down to .244" body diameters seems to indicate about .007" reduction average per stage of Swaging which is about what I found for my end steps of Process.
As this is an Average, I presume the early Steps were for larger reductions and the last steps had smaller reduction per swaging step.

You don't mention the primer pocket nor the flash hole adjustments that I find useful after Swaging. Do you support the Primer pocket during your swaging steps? What size Flash Hole do you end with?

As to your case forming failures, it would seem development of process does result in high losses as my own were high initially, over 35 percent of my first 100 case lot of reforming .22 Hornet brass in one stage swaging. This has Dropped to about 2 percent with multiple step step of .22 Hornet and about ! percent of 5.7x28 cases.

I am hoping my two new Lee Precision "oversize" (for Maximum SAAMI Case diameter) .25ACP Carbide Ring Sizing dies will reduce the losses some more; however, due to the 'Inclement Weather' of late here I have not been able to work at my outside reloading 'Shop' to try the new dies out.

My reloading 'Shop' is on my back patio with a Northeasterly Exposure to wind and Weather. Normally it is comfortable in the Typical Southern California weather but this Cold Rain is NOT the same.

Chev. William

[rbuck351]

My last post was from memory which I should never do. I'm not swaging the bottom .190 head part of the case. Just taper swaging from about .190 to .220 from the bottom of the case and straight sizing forward of that. Yea, the first sizing steps are larger and get progressively smaller. Most of the case head is machined off in step 1 with a 3 degree cut that takes off nothing right at the shoulder and cuts down to about .256 at the rim. This closely follows the inside taper of the body leaving brass thick enough just forward of the head to size the body and swage just a bit of the head. Sizing steps as follows 1. .304 2. .284 3. .274 4. .263 5. .259 6. .251 7. .248 Next the case is machined to .243 front to back. I was trying to size this step but machining works better. Swaging the case head in happens in die 5 where I have taper reamed one end. For size steps 5,6 and 7 I added a couple of washers around the case head (total thickness .162) to keep the case from being pushed into the die any farther. M die to .223 and trim to length. Then load the case. Then back in the lathe and a light filing on the neck until it will easily slide in the chamber. I made 6 cases on the last run one of which had some wrinkles in the case and split when fired. No idea why the one wrinkled. I'll probably make a total of 30 or 40 cases, work up a load and then tuck it away where I won't find it for a while.

[Chev. William]

My Experience with Swaging either .22 hornet or 5.7x28 cases down to .276"-.278" body diameter using as the final Step a Lee Precision Carbide ring .25ACP Sizing die with the Decapping pin and collet removed results in a 'parent' case that has the main body at .25ACP diameters but the bottom roughly .300" tapers from that .276"-.278" diameter up to .280"-.281" diameter just above the extractor clearance cut at the top of the rim. I found this is due to the builtin taper Lee puts in the carbide ring to ease sizing efforts.

I have an old Hollywood engineering .25ACP steel sizing die with less length of mouth taper I can use to swage the taper off the case base, bringing the base to about .279" body diameter. I don't use it often as I only have the one, and 'there are no more' as Hollywood engineering is gone forever.

Chev. William

ADDED 20190420: I now have a home made Die that removes the Taper via a shearing process through use of a Type "P" .277" Inside Diameter Hardened (Rc61) Alloy Steel Drill Bushing with the rounded end inside a Machined Blank PT&G Die body and the Non-radiused end used as the mouth of the die.
I have now tested this home made die on 50 swage formed 5.7x28mm cases with 100 percent yield of parent cases for my 'wildcat' designs.

Chev. William

[Chev. William]

I think that is what we are all trying to do with the main problem being swaging the body of a 5.7x28 down far enough to finish the outside to .242 without breaking the case off at the case head/wall junction. At least that's been my biggest problem and although I have a few more ideas to try my move from AK to MT is taking all my time. I'm forced to put this on a back burner for a while.

There are at Least Three "Inside Lube" .22 RF case Diameters PLUS the one for "Outside Lubed" heeled bullets.
In decreasing diameters they are .250", .245", and .242"; so perhaps it is possible to do all three as steps in the process.

I have found that 5.7x28mm cases grow in length as their diameter is Reduced by Swaging and expect that the .25ACP case would also increase in length as its Diameter is swaged down.

Does a "Magnum" version actually Need to be longer than the 'non-magnum' version of the same cartridge? Especially since we are discussing a Center Fire Magnum version to replace a Magnum Rim Fire version?

Yes, it is convenient to use the Same case length to allow use of the same Chamber for the new cartridge and just change the Ignition Style.
But is that a Requirement?

Chev. William