Compilation of Larry Gibson’s load tests [Archive]

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 06:03 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?404173-38-SPL-P-or-38-44-Loads-with-170-gr-Cast-Bullets-amp-2400

Please note; I am not recommending or saying anyone should shoot any of these loads in any revolver/firearm other than a 357 Magnum chambered revolver/firearm. I certainly do not recommend them for use in any 38 SPL chambered revolver other than the S&W 38/44 “Outdoorsman”, the Colt New Service and the Ruger Security Six chambered in 38 SPL. Even then I would only recommend loads within 38 SPL +P pressures. The data presented here is for information only.

38 SPL +P+ or 38/44 Loads with 170 gr Cast Bullets & 2400

Often on the forum someone asks about loading 160 – 180 gr cast bullets over 2400 powder in the 38 SPL for use in S&W 38/40 N frames along with 357 chambered handgun/rifles. The questions usually center around start and max loads.

Rem-UMC produced a 38/44 cartridge for use in the S&W 38/44 Outdoorsman revolver, the precursor to the 357 magnum revolver. The velocity was listed with 150 and 158 gr j and lead bullets in the 1120 - almost 1200 fps (just going from memory there. Colt is said to have said the 38/44 loads were fine to use in the Colt New Service revolver.

Over the years I've seen the 358156 seated to second crimp groove over 12.0 gr 2400 as "the" load for use in the S&W 38/44 revolvers. That load was also oft recommended for use in M19s and other 357 magnum revolvers "back in the day" when 38 SPL cases were plentiful and easy to obtain and 357 magnum cases were hard to find and expensive.

The 358136/12 gr 2400 was and still is an excellent load in 357 Revolvers. Years back i shot a lot of that load in my Colt Trooper, S&W M28 and Ruger BHs. Back then, as a low paid LEO, I had lots of 38 SPL cases but little 357 Magnum cases. These days I have a sufficient quantity of 357 magnum brass to use.
I have a bit of pressure test data on the Lyman 358156 seated out to the 2nd crimp groove loaded over 2400 in 38 SPL cases for use in 3844 or 357 handguns as that is what that bullet was designed for. The 358156 has become my favorite bullet of choice in the 357 Magnum for use with top end magnum loads. Also, if I was loading +P+ 38 SPLs for use in 357 magnums that is the bullet I would use.

Some seem to want to use the heavier bullets though so I’ve pressure tested two different bullets [36-168K & 36-175H supplied by Ed Harris (Outpost75)]. Many like the 358429 or similar bullets loaded to the crimp groove in 38 SPL cases because of fit in certain Magnum cylinders and feeds in some lever guns. Many also like the longer "Keith" design SWC for longer range shooting among other reasons. I am not averse to anyone using this bullet. The above test was done because many have asked me if I have Pressure tested the 358429 or similar bullet in 38 SPL cases with 2400 powder. The above test results are in answer to those queries.

Unfortunately, I no longer had a 170 gr Lyman “Keith” 358421 mould when I started pressure testing. I never developed an affinity for that bullet in the 357 or 38 SPL so long ago when I traded off an OM Ruger BH I let the mould go with it. I regret letting the Ruger go but not the 358421 mould. With the receipt of the 36-168K (169 gr) & 36-175H (184 gr) bullets I loaded them in 10 shot test strings of 8 – 12 gr in 1 gr increments. I used W-W 38 SPL cases and WSP

primers. Alliant 2400 was used. All charges were thrown using a Lyman 55 powder thrower. The bullets were crimped in the crimp groove with moderate crimp.

Testing was done last Monday, May 22, at the local range here. Temperature was 90 degrees with 7% humidity. Testing was done in the shade so the ambient temperature is also the temperature of the ammunition.

The test firearm was a Contender with a 7.94” barrel. The pressure data and velocity was obtained via a strain gauge attached over the chamber connected to the Oehler M43 PBL. The M43 corrects the screen velocity to muzzle velocity and I posted muzzle velocity. Chronographing the similar loads in a 6” barreled Ruger Security Six results in 150 – 200 fps less velocity out of the revolver.

Test results are the averages of the 10 shots with each test string;

36-168K (169 gr)
Load……Vel……..PSI
8.0……..923……20,100
9.0…….1065…..22,800
10.0…..1151…..24,600
11.0…..1291…..27,000
12.0…..1392…..28,900

36-175H (184 gr)
Load……Vel……..PSI
8.0……..948……22,500
9.0…….1094…..24,400
10.0.....1185…..25,500
11.0…..1298…...28,100
12.0…..1396……29,700

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 06:08 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?415979-Skeeter%92s-357-magnum-load-358156-w-2400-in-38-SPL-Cases

Skeeter’s 357 magnum load 358156 w/2400 in 38 SPL Cases

There has been a recent thread and numerous other discussion of Skeeter Skelton’s 357 magnum level load in 38 SPL cases using the 358156 cast bullet seated to the 2nd crimp groove and loaded with 2400 powder. Skeeter loaded these for use in 357 Magnum revolvers back in the ‘60s and used and recommended them through the ‘70s when 357 Magnum cases were hard to come by except from factory ammunition. There was a plethora of 38 SPL cases available as it was the predominant LE cartridge in use throughout the country. The 38 SPL case was readily available to the general public for little cost if any.

Skeeter used the 358156 seated out to its 2nd crimp groove as that was what it was designed for. While seating the 358156 out to the 2nd crimp groove increased the case capacity in the 38 SPL case doing so still did/does not give the 38 SPL the same capacity as with the same bullet seated in the 357 Magnum case to the 1st crimp groove. I started loading for the 38 SPL and 357 Magnum. Skeeter’s load recommendation was to use 13.5 gr of Hercules 2400 but I found using 12.5 gr was a very good load in my Ruger Blackhawk and Colt Trooper. I got my first Oehler chronograph back in the early ‘70s and found the 12.5 gr load of 2400 under the 358156 seated to the 2nd crimp gr in 38 SPL cases often equaled many 357 Magnum velocities out of those revolvers.

There is a lot of discussion and consternation as to whether it is “safe” to use such a load in S&W N frame 38/44 Outdoorsman revolvers and 357 magnum revolvers. I recently conducted a pressure test of the 38 SPL case loaded with a 358156 seated to the 2nd crimp groove loaded over Alliant 2400 to give some guidance for each to make their own decision as to the “safety” of such and whether to use such. I also, just prior to the beginning of that test pressure tested five factory 38 SPL loads and my own standard load with the 358156 over 2400 in 357 magnum cases as a “reference" ammunition.

The picture shows the Contender 357 barrel of 7.94” length with a strain gauge attached and connected to an Oehler M43 PB used for pressure testing. A Ruger Security Six with 6” barrel was used to chronograph my old load previously mentioned. Also shown are the factory rounds tested as a “reference” along with the 38 SPL case with the 358156 seated to the 1st crimp groove, a 38 SPL case with the 358156 seated to the 2nd crimp groove, a 357 Magnum case with the 358156 seated to the 1st crimp groove and a 358156 cast bullet as used.

Attachment 274839

There are several things we should remember and understand. The first is the SAAMI MAP for the 38 SPL is 17,000 psi, the MPLM is 17,500 psi and the MPSM is 18,300 psi. The SAAMI MAP for the 38 SPL +P is 20,000 psi, the MPLM is 20,600 psi and the MPSM is 21,500 psi. The SAAMI MAP for the 357 magnum is 35,000 psi, the MPLM is 36,100 psi and the MPSM is 37800 psi. While ammunition manufacturers and current load manuals strive to keep the pressure under the MAP for those cartridges under some circumstance the MPLM and MPSM are still acceptable pressures.

Another thing we must understand and remember is neither pressure measurements or velocity measurements are absolute. Even with the same ammunition tested in the same firearm we find both velocity average and psi average for a test of sufficient sample can vary, sometimes significantly. If we chronograph the same load or, in my case also pressure test the same load, especially at different times under some different conditions we will find there is a +/- range. As long as the test average result falls within that +/- range of either velocity or pressure we can assume all is well. That is how the technicians in the labs do it. It’s also why we don’t see a lot of actual pressure figures for many loads and/or factory ammunition. There is a pretty wide range of not only velocity but also pressure that is acceptable by SAAMI standards.

Thus, the results of different test I post here and elsewhere may not always agree precisely with any other similar test results posted. Additionally, I’ve come to understand that when comparing similar weight cast bullets in any handgun cartridge the seating depth (not to be confused with the OAL) and the bearing surface have more affect on pressure than any small difference in weight. Note in the picture of the two 38 SPL cartridges on the left how the bullet seated to the 2nd crimp groove increases the case capacity. Note also the longer length of the Magnum case even with the bullet seated to the 1st crimp groove still has a larger case capacity.

Attachment 274840

The 358156 bullets were cast of COWWs + 2% tin, AC’d with a BHN of 12 – 14 after 14 days. The bullets were sized .358 in a Lyman 450 with Hornady GCs crimped on during sizing/lubing with BAC. The bullets weighed 162 gr fully dressed.

All tests were 10 shots of each load as per SAAMI Standards.

Ambient temperature during the tests ran 52 – 60 degrees. Humidity ran 35% with a barometric pressure hovering around 29.75.

I’ll list the load, the muzzle velocity, the velocity SD/SD [in fps], the pressure, the SD/ES {in psi]

The test of the five factory loads;

Speer 158 lead SWC 38 SPL….874 fps….15/43…..15,500 psi….900/2,400

Remington 158 LRN 38 SPL….899 fps….11/34….15,300 psi…..900/3,000

Remington 125 JHP +P….1149…..28/91….15,200 psi…..700/2,200

Remington 148 HBWC 6138….818 fps….19/63….15,000 psi….1,700/5,800

Remington 148 HBWC R38S3….805 fps….9/23….13,900 psi....600/1700

All the above velocity and pressure test results are consistent [+/-] with previous tests of the same ammunition in the same test barrel.

The test of my standard 357 Magnum load with the 358156, seated to the 1st crimp groove [OAL; 1.597”], using 14.0 gr Alliant 2400 in Winchester 357 magnum cases with CCI 500 primers;

357 Magnum SL….1548 fps….20/75….34,600 psi…..1,800/6,000

Test results of Alliant 2400 from 11.0 to 13.5 gr in ½ gr increments of Alliant 2400 in Winchester 38 SPL cases with the 358156 seated to the 2nd crimp groove [OAL; 1.517”] with CCI 500 primers.

11.0 gr 2400….1275 fps….23/72….24,900 psi….1,400/4,400

11.5 gr 2400….1349 fps…..20/69….28,700 psi….1,500/5,100

12.0 gr 2400….1358 fps….21/69….28,800 psi….800/2,500

12.5 gr 2400….1445 fps….24/73….33,200 psi….200/600

13.0 gr 2400….1486 fps….19/56….35,000 psi….2,500/7,3000

13.5 gr 2400….1531 fps….24/89….37,900 psi….2,100/7,100

Chronograph test (same Oehler M43 PBL) of the 12.5 gr load of 2400 in the 38 SPL cases with the 358156 seated to the 2nd crimp groove in the Ruger Security Six. Average is of 10 rounds in the test.

12.5 gr 2400….1251 fps…..23 fps SD….58 fps ES

Note in the pressure test this load proved to be the most uniform. The velocity loss between the 7.94” Contender solid barrel and the 6” barrel of the Ruger was 175 fps. Giving 1250 fps at 33,200 psi definitely ranks the load right “in there” with most 357 Magnum factory rounds using 150 – 158 gr bullets. I was shooting with the barrel at the ejector rod housing resting on sandbags aiming at 6 o’clock on a 50 yard pistol bullseye. All 10 test shots went into the 10 ring. That’s about as good as I can do anymore. That load was an excellent one many years ago when I was using it and it obviously is today.

As to Skeeter’s load of 13.5 gr, that load is over the SAAMI MAP for the 357 magnum cartridge but still within the MPLM and MPSM. Ballistically it is very close to my standard 357 magnum load of 14 gr but does give higher pressure. That, again is due to the lesser case capacity of the 38 SPL case even with the 358156 seated out to the 2nd crimp groove.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 06:11 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?163604-Black-Powder-Pressure

My own pressure tests (Oehler M43) in a 24" test barrel show;

415 gr Desperado 20-1 bullet
70 gr GOEX CTG
Starline cases
Fed 215M primers
19,100 psi
1233 fps

415 gr Desperado 20-1 bullet
Duplex; 7 gr 4759/ 54 gr GOEX CTG
Starline cases
Fed 215M primers
20,300 psi
1263 fps

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 06:13 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?344410-B-Load-Manual-Error-B

Loading Manual Error……

Over the years, especially the last nine years with an Oehler M43 actually pressure testing, I’ve discovered error in data in almost every make (Speer, Lyman, Hornady, Hodgdon and Nosler) of loading manuals. This is especially the case with data from older and newer manuals that list pressures derived from the C.U.P. method of testing. Lee’s manual simply copies the data from other sources, both C.U.P. data and modern psi data obtained from transducer/strain gauge pressure measurement. Many newer manuals have loads “adjusted”, usually down, from the data in older manuals. Many think this is from lawyers, etc. but the truth is most newer reloading manual data is derived from better and more complete pressure testing through the use of peizo-transducers and strain gauge measurements. What is found is many older loads that were thought to be within safe standards for the cartridge actually were too high in pressure.

A recent example has been found using H4350 in the 30-06 with Hornady’s new 178 gr ELD-X bullet. A friend of mine recently had goodsteel build him a long range rifle based on a M700 action. It has a 31” Palma contoured barrel with a 12” twist chambered in 30-06 XCB. Based on my previous experience with ’06 match rifles and long range rifles I suggested 4350 powder. He collected a good amount of all three flavors; IMR, Hodgdon and Accurate Arms. He also got a supple of 175 Sierra MKs and the new Hodgdon 178 ELD-X bullets. He is using Winchester match prepped cases and Federal 215 Match primers.

He decided to try the Hodgdon’s H4350 powder and turned to the Hodgdon #27 manual. One would assume Hodgdon had the data well tested and correct since it’s their powder. We were discussing the loads by phone (he is in NE Oregon and I’m in Arizona) so I opened up my Hodgdon #27 manual and turned to the data for the 30-06 with 180 gr bullets. The #27 manual lists the max load for 180 gr bullets using H4350 at 57.5 gr. That is with a C.U.P. of 49,200. The velocity listed from a 24” Winchester M70 barrel with a 10” twist at 2798 fps. I have not used H4350 in the 30-06 (I mostly use IMR and AA) so I took the data at face value.

My friend decided to work up from 54 gr in ½ gr increments to 57.5 gr of H4350. A few days later he called back just tickled pink as the 57.5 gr load was shooting right at ½ moa at 300 yards. He had broke down and bought the top end Chrony with printer but hadn’t yet chronographed it. I was up there a few weeks back on my way to the Tacoma area. We went out to the local range and set up the Chrony and chronographed the 57.5 gr load. There was no indication of excessive pressure; bolt opened normally, primers looked fine and no excessive expansion at the case head. But holy smokes…..the average velocity was 3060 fps!!!!! My prediction with either AA4350 or IMR4350 under a 175 gr Sierra MK was 2950 fps +/- given the 31” barrel……but 3060 fps? About 3 weeks later I returned back through there so we took the rifle up to another friend’s ranch where they have a 1000 yard range with a sturdy bench to shoot from. He put 9 shots consecutively into right at 1 moa at 1000 yards in a 5 -8 gusting to 10 mph side wind. I put 10 shots into 1.2 moa. Again, even though it was 80+ degrees there was no sign of excess pressure.

However, that night my friend was depriming the cases and three primers basically fell out of the pockets. The primer pockets were swollen and no longer would hold a primer. That was the first sign of excessive pressure. My friend gave me a pound of the H4350 and a box of the 178 ELD-Xs to bring home with me to pressure test that load. I have the Winchester cases and Federal 215 Match primers. When I got home I loaded test loads of 56.5, 57 and 57.5 gr. Yesterday morning at daylight I was at the range here in Lake Havasu to test those loads. Was 65 degrees so heat would not be a factor. My 30-06 test rifle is a M98 Mauser with a 24” barrel. I chambered it with a match reamer to minimal headspace. I gives pressure readings via the Oehler M43 that are commensurate with the known pressure of Federal and Winchester factory loads used as “reference ammunition”.

I shot a ten shot test with M72 Match to validate everything was set up correctly. The measured data was within normal range. I lightly cleaned the barrel and proceeded to test the 56.5 gr load. The test rounds were loaded in fire formed test Winchester cases NS’d with a Bonanza Bench rest NS die. Primers were Federal 215 Match. Powder charges were weighed with a Redding scale. The 178 ELD-Xs were seated to 3.330” which is just off the leade.

The Oehler M43 was set up to measure the pressure and velocity for each shot. Start screen was at 15 feet with a 4 foot screen spacing. Target was at 100 yards.

The 1st test shot went 2882 fps with 69,200 psi(M43)
The 2nd test shot went 2873 fps with 68,900 psi(M43)
The 3rd test shot went 2869 fps with 69,200 psi(M43)

I quit testing and did not fire the remaining 7 rounds of that load nor did I fire any of the heavier 57 and 57.5 gr loads. With the 69,000 psi +/- from the “start” load I sure wasn’t going any higher…….

Average for the 3 test shots was:
Velocity; 2875
PSI; 69,100

The M43 correction to muzzle velocity was 2884 fps. The 3 shots grouped .94”.

The 56.5 gr H4350 test load was 86 fps faster than the Hodgdon manual listed max load of 57.5 gr. Note the test barrels were both 24”. Obviously the psi of the 56.5 load was quite excessive. I hesitated to guess at the pressure of the 57.5 gr load but based on experience I’d guess it was 75,000 +/- psi….well into “proof level” loads.

On the return home I figured something was definitely amiss. I pulled the bullets of the cartridges not fired and reweighed the charges….they were spot on. I then looked at a couple burn rate charts and discovered my own “error”. H4350 is sandwiched right between AA4350 and IMR4350. My experience with both of those is that 56 gr is a max load (measured 60 – 62,000 psi) under a 180 gr Hornady SPBT. I then checked Hornady’s 8th and 10th Edition manuals. They list 55.3 gr H4350 as a max load under 178 – 180 gr bullets…….Hello......says I, there’s a 2.2 gr difference between the Hodgdon and Hornady manuals. The 2700 fps velocity level +/- is also commensurate with what I get out of my test rifle and M70 (24” barrels with 56 gr AA4350.

Examination of the fired cases revealed no sign of excessive pressure as shown here. They were fired left to right. The primers appear normal for a top end jacketed 30-06 load with 60,000 psi. 2nd photo shows the case as fired left to right with a fire formed case (far right) from a previous normal psi firing.

Again, no sign of excessive pressure, just normal expansion at the expansion ring after 3 firings.

Attachment 204826Attachment 204827

I’ve reloaded up test strings of 54.5, 55.0 ,55.3, 55.6 and 55.9 H4350 with all other load parameters being the same. Hoping to test before the week is out. I will post the results here.

Today September 28, 2017 I completed the test. I again set up at daylight with little to no wind and the temp right at 70 degrees. Results are;

54.5 gr; 2743 fps with 56,600 psi(M43)
55.0 gr: 2801 fps with 60,400 psi(M43)
53.3 gr; 2833 fps with 61,900 psi(M43)
55.6 gr; 2850 fps with 63,700 psi(M43)

I did not test the 55.9 gr load.

The maximum load listed in Hornady 8th and 10th editions is correct at 55.3. Any modern action also chambered in .308W ill also handle this psi level. I would consider the 54.5 gr load as maximum in older actions such as the M1903s.

The Hodgdon maximum load is 2.2 gr higher and obviously is too much.

This obvious error in older loading data with the pressure measured via the C.U.P. method is another example that care should be exercised when using older data, especially when the pressure is listed as measured with the C.U.P. method. New comers to reloading should head advice not to jump to the top load of a manual or to use loads given on internet sites and forums without consulting other references. Even then a reduction and proper work up should always be done.

A chronograph also is an excellent tool to use when developing loads, especially if one is going to approach top end jacketed loads. When the velocity is faster than the published data understand there is probably only one reason why; pressure.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 11:25 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?109280-The-proper-use-of-fillers

I have for many, many years found dacron (polyester fill) to be the best "filler". I use a filler only when appropriate. Many think I always use a filler with every powder....I DO NOT!!!! The use of the filler can cause problems if not used correctly and when appropriate. If the powder is not correct for the bullet/cartridge combination then the filler is not going to make it "right". Many want to use a specific powder for a cartridge because the powder is "cheap" or because "they have a lot of it". There are lots of powders that are not only poor choices to use but that can be dangerous if used in an inappropriate bullet/cartridge combination. Do yourself a favor if you are wanting to use an inappropriate powder (usually "no data" available is an indication the powder might be inappropriate) and get an appropriate powder. You will save yourself a lot of frustration. The use of the dacron filler only makes an appropriate powder perform better. The dacron filler will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

I don't use the dacron filler or a wad with the fast to medium burning "fast" pistol /shotgun type powders. I find one of these fast burning powders that is fast enough to ignite and burn efficiently at the velocity I want and avoid using a filler with them.

I almost always use the dacron filler in rifle cases with the slower “fast” burning powders (4227, 4759, 5744, 4198, etc. with lighter medium weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 140 - 165 gr bullets in .30/.31 cals of 30-30 through '06 case capacity), the medium burning powders (RL7, 3031, 4895, etc.) up through the slow burning powders (RL19, AA4350, H4831SC, RL22, 3100, etc.) that give around 80% or less loading density under medium to heavy weight bullets for the cartridge; i.e. 170 - 220+ gr bullets in .30/.31 cals. Those examples are for the .30/.31 cals but the same guidance applies to other calibers. The dacron filler is used only between the powder and base of the bullet.

The “dacron” is polyester fill as commonly found in pillows and toys. It also comes in sheets called “batting”. It can be obtained very reasonably at most any fabric store.

The dacron batting comes in various thicknesses. I prefer that which is about 5/8" thick. My wife recently bought me 10 yards which will give many, many thousands of cast bullet loads. With this current batch of batting I cut it initially across the width into strips about 3/4" wide. I then "eyeball" cut 1/2" wide chunks which is close to 3/4 gr.

A smaller chunk is cut for 1/2 gr and larger for a larger amount. I've cut some chunks that weight 1/2, 3/4, 1, 1 1/4 and 1 1/2 grs and have them in a "snack" baggie stuck on a poster board above my loading bench for quick reference when I need to cut new chunks. The batting will run thin and thick throughout the sheet so I again just "eyeball it" based on the thickness of the batting when cutting the chunks.

Pretty extensive tests have demonstrated that the weight of the filler does not have to be exact, only close. What is important is that there is enough so that it “fills" the space between powder and bullet. A little too much hurts nothing but too little poses problems. That's why I have the different size "chunks" so I can use the right size for the case capacity I am filling. For example; with most medium burning powders (3031, 4895, 4064) in and '06 to function an M1 a 3/4 gr dacron filler is about right. With slower powders that give a higher loading density like 4831 a 1/2 gr filler is about right.

I use a section of .22 cal cleaning rod in cartridges of .30 - .375 cal to push the Dacron chunk inside the case just so it is all in. The 6 to 10" section gives plenty to hold onto and sufficient "feel". Merely hold the chunk of dacron over the case mouth and shove it in with the rod. Sometimes it takes a couple three pokes to ensure all is inside the case mouth. I poke the chunks in until all the dacron is at the bottom of the neck or at least all in the case. It doesn’t matter exactly where just so long as you don’t tamp it down on the powder as a wad and leaved a space between the base of the bullet and the dacron.

What you want to do is push it in to let the base of the bullet finish pushing it down and adding any compression against the powder. Thus I do not push it down on the powder but let the bullet do that when the bullet is seated. Using the right size chunk of dacron this method then provides a "filler" in the air space between the powder and base of the bullet.

A small length of coat hanger works for the .22-7mm cartridges and an unsharpened pencil works well for .45 cals. With the charged cases in a loading block I simply hold the chunk of dacron over the case mouth and push it in with the rod. It is quite easy and a lot of “precision is not required, just get the dacron into the case and let the bullet finish pushing it down.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 11:30 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?358932-7-62x39-Cast-loads

During the latest thread on LeveRevolution Powder Junior1942 PM’d me asking about the 30-30 testing I had done with the RCBS 30-180-FN and that powder.He asked about the test and was trying to correlate the psi’s from that test to the 7.62x39 for possible use in his YugoSKS.He primarily was interested to see if the LeveRevolution powder would give him a bit better performance under his COWW cast bullets which weight 197 gr.Isuggested there was no sense trying to correlate when I could pressure test in the 7.62x39 also.I suggested he send some bullets and the data for his other powder loads and I would pressure test those also.Junior thought that was agreat idea.He asked how many bullets?I told him a hundred minimum.

Junior scrounged around and found about a hundred (104 to be exact) he had already cast and said he’d cast up some more and send ’em if need be.He said a few were wrinkled.Told him they’d be fine for the initial LeveRevolution work up as we were interested there was the psi. I got the bullets a couple days later.They were sized at .314, had Hornady GCs and were lubed with LLA.The BHN measured 11 – 12.I proceeded to check out the Mini Mk X Mauser I would use for the test.Unfortunately the strain gauge had partially cracked for some reason.It hadn’t been used in over 2 years and the change in location, temperatures and humidity are my guess why.Called the company to order some more gauges and they would take about 6 – 7 weeks.Told Junior and he was a bit down over that.However, in about 2 weeks a package showed upwith the strain gauges.

IPM’d Junior and told him I was ready to test and asked a couple clarification questions about his standard loads.I didn’t hear back from Junior and just assumed he was away or busy.I did not know he had gone to the big range.I proceeded with the test and will post the results here…..for Junior…..rest in peace, may the sun always be to your back, the wind in your face and all your shots fly true.

Test rifle; Interarms Mini Mk X
Caliber; 7.63x39
Bore; .301
Groove; .311
Barrel length/twist; 20”/1-9.5”
Sights; Bushnell 4X scope

Testequipment; Oehler M43 PBL

Range; Sara Park, Lake Havasu City, AZ

Test range; 100 yards, solid cement benches

Rest; Hoppe’s front and leather sand bag (rabbit ear) rear

Test shots; due to limited number of bullets not all test strings had 10 shots. Some had less but not less than 7 shots.The LeveRevolution psi workup had 2 shots per powder charge.

Attachment 112982

The test was conducted on two separate days early in the mornings. This gave the least heat (this is the desert with day time temps running 105 – 115) at daybreak (85 – 90) and the least wind. Juniors standard loads and the LeveRevolution psi work up was conducted on the 1st day along with a LeveRevolution psi workup with a 175 gr C314041 cast bullet of my own. The second day was the test of 3 loads of the LeveRevolution under Juniors 30-180-FNs and 3 loads under my own C314041.

The 1st day’s tests;

Reference ammunition test; The CIP Pmap (Maximum Average Pressure) for the 7.62x39 cartridge is 51,500 psi (peizo-transducer or strain gauge. Three factory loads were tested to set a base line for the mini Mk X.

Attachment 112983

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 11:31 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?250083-Junior1942-s-7-62x39-SKS-loads-with-LeveRevolution

In conjunction with a recent test of Junior1942s favoriteloads for his SKS using the RCBS 30-180-FN (197 gr cast of COWWs) I also tested the 7.62x39 cartridge with theGB C314-041 bullet with LeveRevolution powder.If you read the thread on Junior’s loas you saw that LeveRevolutionpowder under the heavier 197 gr RCBS bullet worked quite well in the 7.62x39cartridge.The RPM Threshold with COWWcast bullets was pushed up 150 + fps while maintaining quite less psi than withthe more popular medium burning powders such as 4895 and Varget.

Referring back to the 30-30 test I conducted withLeveRevolution powder it was found there a bullet of 170 + gr was really neededto get the LeveRevolution powder to burn efficiently.My testing of this powder with cast bulletsso far has consistently shown that LeveRevolution powder requires 26 – 28,000psi to begin burning efficiently.Withthe 30-180-FN seated to max magazine length for the SKS 27.5 gr gave about 105%load density and produced 28,700 psi(M43) under the RCBS 197 gr bullet and gavevery good accuracy at 1843 fps out of the test rifles 20” barrel.

The question was; would the 175 gr (COWWs + 2% tin at 13 –15 BHN) GB C314-041 provide enough mass for LeveRevolution to burn efficiently?With the bullet seated so the cartridge OALwas 2.206” the load density of LeveRevolution powder at 100% was 29.5 gr in theFL sized Winchester cases.I ran an initialpressure/velocity work up from 26.5 gr to 29.5 gr.That showed the 29.5 gr load might be 25,000psi at around 1900+ fps.I loaded 10shot test strings of 27.5, 28.5 and 29.5 gr to test.

Results;

Testrifle; Interarms Mini Mk X
Caliber;7.63x39
Bore;.301
Groove;.311
Barrellength/twist; 20”/1-9.5”
Sights;Bushnell 4X scope

Testequipment; Oehler M43 PBL

Range;Sara Park, Lake Havasu City, AZ

Testrange; 100 yards, solid cement benches

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Calibri]Rest;Hoppe’s front and leather sand bag (rabbit ear) rear

Attachment 150923

Bullet; Lee Group buy 6 cavity C314-041

GCs; mine out of .014 brass shim stock

Lube; NRA 50/50

Sized to; .312

Alloy; COWWs + 2%tin AC’d BHN 13 – 15

Cases; Winchester, FL sized

Primers; CCI 200

Cartridge OAL ; 2.206” with GCs at the bottom of the caseneck with light crimp under driving band.

The 27.5 gr load; we see this load did not burnefficiently at all. The cases were sooty clear back the case head and aroundthe rims.The large ES of velocity andgroup size of 5.5’ says it all.I tracethrough the target bullet holes onto the data sheet for a record of the group.

Velocity; 1781 fps

Psi(M43); 22,000

Accuracy; 5.5”
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]

Attachment 150927

28.5 gr; Accuracy got better and the ES was about half ofthe previous load.This indicates thepowder is starting to burn more efficiently except there still was soot abouthalf way back along the cases indicating the pressure curve was not sufficientfor the case to obdurate and seal the chamber.

Velocity;1884 fps

Psi(M43);23,900

Accuracy;3.6”
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]

Attachment 150928

29.5 gr; things are beginning to come together.The psi is still a bit low as we see a coupleof the shots fell out the bottom psi wise.The velocity ES is very good and the accuracy given the velocity is alsoquite good.Still some sooting of thenecks and shoulder area on the cases indicating obturation of the case is stilla problem.The average psi is stillbelow where LeveRevolution really burns efficiently.

Velocity;1944 fps

Psi(M43);24,800

Accuracy;2.5”
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]

Attachment 150929

Perhaps in the test rifle which is a bolt action necksized fire formed cases will allow 30 gr or maybe 30.5 gr of LeveRevolutionpowder with this 175 gr bullet in the small 7.62x39 case.If so then the psi may get high enough forefficient powder burning.However, forthose who might want to use this powder in the SKS or AK I suggest a heavierbullet of 180 at least and perhaps 185 gr or use the RCBS 30-180-FN which seemsto cast on the heavier side.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 11:37 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?143855-Converting-Berdan-primer-pockets-to-Boxer

Converting Berdan Primer Pockets to Boxer

Several pics with this one, probably best to follow the link vs reposting.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-25-2022, 11:44 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?72355-2400-Hercules-vs-Alliant

2400; Hercules vs Alliant

Sometime back I stated I would conduct a pressure test comparing the old Hercules 2400 with the newer Alliant 2400. Alliant, since taking over manufacture of the Hercules powders, says they have not changed the formula of 2400 yet most reloading manuals show a decline of around 1 gr with maximum loads. The question of whether or not there is a difference between old Hercules 2400 and Alliant 2400 most often comes up with the .44 magnum, specifically with 429421 and the classic “Keith” load of 22 gr under that bullet. Lyman’s Cast Bullet Manual lists a maximum load at 23.4 gr of 2400 with the 429421 cast bullet, their “Keith” bullet. Some say 21 grains is the max with the newer Alliant 2400 and others still shoot 22 gr of the newer Alliant 2400 the same as they did with Hercules 2400. This begs the question; is there a difference between the older Hercules 2400 and the newer Alliant 2400? This test will focus on the pressure difference between the two powders if any. Though I will mention accuracy in a couple places let us remember we are concerned about pressure here and what is a “safe” load, not what is an accurate load.

As an after thought I also decided to throw in a test string using magnum large pistol primers to test whether there is an internal ballistic difference between their use and the normal use of a standard large pistol primer in the 44 magnum with the classic “Keith” load.

I have conducted this because I have the equipment not only to measure the velocity but also the psi of many cartridges, the 44 magnum included. I also decided to include a test of a popular load using 2400 with a 160 grain cast bullet in the 30-30.

I conducted the test yesterday, the 7th of January 2010. The test was conducted at Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Club on the main range. There are very solid cement benches there and I use the same bench when conducting pressure tests with the screens, equipment set up in the same position and locations. The test instrument is the M43 Personal Ballistics Laboratory made by Oehler Research. The test firearm was the Thompson Center Contender; a 8.4” barrel for the .44 magnum and a 21” barrel for the 30-30. The 44 magnum barrel has a 1.5X Bushnell scope mounted on it and the 30-30 barrel has a Weaver K4. The 30-30 barrel is in carbine form with a Brown thumbhole rear stock.

It took a while to locate an old can of Hercules 2400 but a forum member, Shuz, came across with one. He lives in Spokane so it took some coordination to get it transported to me on the other side of the state. Many thanks should be given to Shuz and his daughter who made this test possible.

The cardboard cylindrical “can” of Hercules 2400 was unopened and I cut the plastic end off the little plastic spout. The bottom of the can was marked “Shift 1”, 02400 066, 12693. The plastic “can” of Alliant 2400 has a lot # of CE0519 on it and was purchased last year before the rush.

The 44 magnum bullets were cast of WWs+2% tin in a RCBS 44-250-K double cavity mould. Bullets were inspected for complete fill out and other defects but other than that were non selected. The bullets fully dressed weighed 254 grains. The bullet lube used was Javelina and bullets were sized .430 in a Lyman 450. Cases were new, unfired, Winchester WW Super manufacture. Primers were Federal 150s and CCI 350s. Cases were sized and loaded in RCBS dies. A heavy roll crimp was applied in the bullets crimp groove as a separate step. AOL was 1.705”. Powder charges were weighed on a Redding scale.

The 30-30 bullets were cast of the same alloy in a Lyman 311466 double cavity mould. The bullets were visually inspected only for defects. The Hornady gas checks were pre seated then the bullets were sized and lubed with Javelina in a Lyman 450 with a .314 H die. The bullets were then pushed through a Lee .311 sizer. The fully dressed bullets weighed right at 160 gr. The .311 sized bullets when loaded in the FC 30-30 cases gave a very tight slip fit in the chambers neck. Cases were full length sized in an RCBS X-die die with a Lyman .31 M-die used to expand the case mouth and a 7mm seating die used to seat the over diameter bullets. Primers were Winchester WLRs. The bullets were seated with the front diving band just off the lands putting the GC right at the base of the case neck. AOL was 2.45”.

Test; the test strings for the 44 magnum consisted of 10 shots each for 20.5, 21, 21.5 and 22 gr of both Hercules and Alliant 2400. At 21 gr I also fired the additional test string of 10 shots using the CCI LP magnum primer. The target for the 44 magnum was at 50 yards. The start screen was 16 feet from the muzzle. The 30-30 test strings were also of 10 shots each and consisted of 16 gr of each of the 2400s. The target for the 30-30 test was at 100 yards. The start screen for the 30-30 test was 15 feet from the muzzle.

The temperature during the test range from 39 to 43 F. There was no wind to speak of. As is my usual practice when I set up the M43 I fired a 5 shot test string with a specific .308W rifle and one lot of M118SB as “reference ammunition” to ensure the M43 set up is good. This same specific rifle is used with a clean bore and the same lot of very uniform ammunition each time I set up the M43 for a test. In this case the reference ammunition test velocity and psi data readings were well with in norm for the 39 F temperature. All was good with the M43 set up so I conducted the test. At the conclusion of the 44 magnum test I cleaned the barrel and also ran 2 jacketed loads through it as a reference. This was a factory load and another standard load with a jacketed bullet. The ballistic information on these is also included for reference. Added: With regards to the seemingly low psi; this test was conducted at 39 -43 F. A check of previous test with this same bullets and same lot of 22 gr of Alliant conducted when the temperature was in the high 70s revealed an increase of 5,000 psi over what was obtained in this test. Obviously the ambiant temperature is a variable that must be considered.

Data and remarks; I will list the data for each charge as; H2400 (Hercules 2400) or A2400 (Alliant 2400) /velocity (adjusted to muzzle)/SD (Standard Deviation)/ ES (Extreme Spread) and under that will be the MAP (Mean Average Pressure)/SD/ES. All velocities, SDs and ES are in feet per second. All MAPs, SD and ES are in psi(M43). Keep in mind that pressure data and velocity data are not absolutes. There are expected variations between test strings of the same lot of ammunition and also between lots of components, especially powders. Alliant, of course, does not reveal the variation between lots of any powder. I do know that it was acceptable for a +/- 5% variation (10% variation possible) between different lots of IMR 4895. This is why some lots shoot ‘faster” or “slower” than other lots of the same powder. Also keep in mind that factory published psi and SAAMI psi are maximum allowable average pressures for specific cartridges. That does not mean every one of those cartridges are loaded to that psi level. Quite the contrary most factory and arsenal ammunition are well below those published figures, a “fudge factor” if you will.

The 44 magnum cartridge has a SAAMI MAP psi, using piezo-electric measurement, of 41,000 psi or 36,000 C.U.P. (Copper Unit Pressure). Also keep in mind that I am not using a SAAMI spec test barrel. I am using a production barrel with more than likely specs that are not at minimum like the SAAMI specs. Thus we can expect somewhat less velocity and attendant less pressure out of the Contender barrel than we would get with identical loads out of a SAAMI spec test barrel. For that very reason I would not load to the SAAMI max of 41,000 psi in this barrel. In my experience with the M43 and psi measurements in production barrels I would consider 35,000 psi(M43) to be a maximum load for the 44 magnum in a production barrel such as the Contender’s.

20.5 gr
H2400; 1365/17/56
25,700/900/2,700

A2400; 1425/13/41
26,000/600/1,900

21 gr
H2400; 1436/18/53
28,900/1,100/3,100

A2400; 1466/14/47
27,200/600/2,200

21 gr with CCI 350 magnum primers
H2400; 1438/17/51
27,100/1,000/3,000

A2400; 1474/19/60
27,300/1,100/3,200

21.5 gr
H2400; 1455/18/55
26,500/900/2,400

A2400; 1468/18/58
27,000/800/3,000

22 gr
H2400; 1493/20/57
27,000/700/2,000

A2400; 1515/14/47
27,900/700/2,400

Magtech 44 magnum factory ammunition; 240 HHP, 17.2 gr flake powder
1376/24/72
25,100/1,700/6,100

Hornady 240 gr XTP/24.5 gr H110, R-P cases, WLP primer
1540/16/46
31,200/1,500/4,700

From the above data, with the exception of the 21 gr data, we see that the Alliant 2400 appears to be “hotter”. However, the difference is less than 2% which is probably well within acceptable lot to lot variation. The 21 gr load where the Hercules 2400 is “hotter” is even less that 2% variation. Note that the 21.5 gr load of Hercules 2400 has 2,400 less psi than the 21 gr load of Alliant 2400 but still has a slightly higher velocity….such are the variances and why there is an acceptable variance. It is also why the “fudge factor” is built in. Were all the loads of Alliant 2400 “hotter” than the Hercules 2400 we could safely say, at least from this test, that this lot of Alliant 2400 is “hotter” than this lot of Hercules 2400. However that is not the case. With this test it appears both powders fall within lot to variation of a specific powder.

The Magtech factory ammunition is fairly indicative of current factory velocities and pressures. The Hornady XTP load is a popular load for that bullet and you can see the velocity and psi is up there. Lyman lists 23.4 gr of 2400 as a max load with their 429421 in the 3rd edition of their Cast Bullet Handbook. I can not disagree with that psi wise given the results of this test.

As to accuracy I have found with PB’d cast bullets used loaded in revolver cartridges and shot in other Contenders, revolvers with 6”+ barrels and rifles that accuracy starts to go above 1400 – 1450 fps and so it was with this test. The 21.5 gr load of both Hercules and Alliant 2400 with the CCI magnum primers proved to be the most accurate load on target even though the standard Federal primer load had slightly better internal ballistics. A repeat of the test could very well reverse that as the difference between the two powders internally or accuracy wise wasn’t enough to consider remarkable. I would use either load in this Contender barrel for hunting.

30-30
The 30-30 test was rather straight forward with only one charge of each powder tested. I will list the data in the same format;

16 gr
H2400; 1861/19/53
42,400/5,600/15,600

A2400; 1873/11/41
42,000/1,400/3,800

Remarks; 2400 is reputed to be a fine powder for midrange cast bullet loads with a filler not being necessary. It also is supposed to be non-position sensitive. I will agree with that to the extent if heavy for caliber cast bullets are used such as 190 – 220 gr bullets. My experience of years ago with medium weight bullets was born out again by this test, 2400 is not an efficient powder for medium or light weight bullets and with such is, indeed, position sensitive. The first 3 shots were foulers and no effort was made to position the powder in the case. The ES was from 1688 fps to 1822 fps. That was unacceptable. I thus conducted the Hercules 2400 test by raising the muzzle about 45 -60 degrees before shooting to position the powder to the rear of the case. Even then ignition was not what I would call consistent with the Hercules. With the Alliant I raised the muzzle to 90 degrees before shooting and the ES of the psi improved dramatically. There were also pressure spikes both up and down when the bullet was about 2/3s down the barrel. The pressure spikes were not any where near the MAP pressures but it showed uneven ignition and burn of the powder. Note also that the Alliant 2400 gave a lower MAP than the Hercules 2400 even though the velocity was slightly higher. Even with the large psi ES of the Hercules 2400 the average pressure of the 2 powders is so close that they again, in the 30-30, fall well within lot to lot variation of a specific powder.

Conclusion; Alliant says they didn’t change the formula for 2400 and you can’t prove by me otherwise. With cast bullets I shall to use 22 gr of Alliant 2400 under the 250 gr "Keith" style cast bullet in the 44 magnum as that load shoots very nicely in my Ruger 50th Anniversary BHFT at 1350 fps.

Caveat; I did not conduct any test with Alliant 2400 and jacketed bullets of 240 grain weight and the results of my test are not to be inclusive of them. It is expected that the pressures would be higher but since I have not ran a test all I can say is stick with current published data when using jacketed bullets and either Hercules 2400 or Alliant 2400.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-26-2022, 08:54 AM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?437017-35-Remington-Pressure-tests&highlight=larry+gibson

35 Remington Pressure Tested Loads

Test rifle is a M91 Mauser rebarreled with a 26” Shilen sporter barrel with a 14” twist as sold prethreaded and 35 Remington short chambered for SR Mauser actions by Brownell's. I finish reamed the chamber with a chamber reamer I had made to minimum SAAMI specification and headspace was set at minimum. The M91 is still in cut down military stok. Sight are a Lyman SME receiver sight with an M14 front sight.

Pressure and velocity were tested with an Oehler M43 PBL. Cartridges were loaded with RCBS dies. The case mouths were mildly crimped in the canalure and crimp grooves on the rifles.

The SAAMI MAP for the 35 Remington is 33,500 psi in deference to the older recoil operated semi automatic rifles for which the cartridge was first developed. I many single shots, the marlin 336 lever actions and bolt actions the pressure can be raised increasing the efficiency of the 35 Remington considerably. The Marlin 336 while chambered in 35 Remington has been mostly chambered in 30-30. Thus with the M336 being made to handle the 30-30 SAAMI MAP of 42,000 psi I see no reason why 35 Remington cartridges can not be loaded to that level for the M336 Marlin lever action rifles.

I used 2 different loads for “reference ammunition”. The first was a specific lot of Federal factory PowerShok loaded with 200 gr RNSPs. The Federal technician wouldn't give the specific pressure tested data for that lot but advised it was just under the MPSM (35,500 psi) for the cartridge. The second was a Lyman max load listed using H4895 powder in their 50th Edition Manual which listed a psi of 32,400 psi. I replicated that load all except for the bullet. I did not have any Hornady 200 gr FTX but used 200 gr Remington CorLoks. The FTX is seated much deeper into the relative small 35 Remington case with Lyman showing it as a compressed load. The Remington bullet seates to the base of the neck leaving airspace between the powder and the bullet. Thus, I expected the psi of the “reference” test load to be a bit less than the listed Lyman load.

All tests are 10 shot tests. The M43 PBL converts the velocity to the muzzle [remember this is from a 26” barrel].

Test data of the two “reference” loads;

Federal Factory 200 gr PowerShok

Federal F-C cases
Federal 210 primers
38 gr ball type powder
OAL; 2.471”
Velocity; 2286 fps
SD/ES fps; 19/53
PSI (M43); 35,200 (just under the MPSM)
SD/ES psi; 1,000/2,900

Lyman 50th Edition Handbook replication test load

R-P cases
Rem 9 ½ Primers
36.0 gr H4895
OAL; 2.522”
Velocity; 2065 fps
SD/ES fps; 39/100
PSI (M43); 30,000 (less with the shorter seating depth of the Remington 200 gr bullet)
SD/ES psi; 1,800/5,300

Remington 180 gr FPJ bullet w/LeveRevolution

Win Super cases
CCI 200 primers
45.0 gr LeveRevolution [100% load density]
OAL; 2.457”
Velocity; 2407 fps
SD/ES fps; 16/57
PSI (M43); 32,100 (just under the MPSM)
SD/ES psi; 1,200/3,600

Remington 200 gr RNSP bullet w/LeveRevolution

Win Super cases
CCI 200 primers
42.0 gr LeveRevolution
OAL; 2.457”
Velocity; 2249 fps
SD/ES fps; 31/109
PSI (M43); 30,900
SD/ES psi; 1,200/3,600

Remington 200 gr RNSP bullet w/LeveRevolution

Win Super cases
CCI 200 primers
45.0 gr LeveRevolution [100% load density]
OAL; 2.457”
Velocity; 2425 fps
SD/ES fps; 16/41
PSI (M43); 36,300
SD/ES psi; 1,200/4,300

RCBS 35-200-FN cast of COWW + 2% tin, Hornady GCs, 2500+ lube, sized at .360

R-P Cases
WLR Primers
37 gr IMR4895
OAL; 2.425”
Velocity; 2162 fps
SD/ES fps; 50/140
PSI (M43); 41,100
SD/ES psi; 2,400/6,800

RCBS 35-200-FN cast of COWW + 2% tin, Hornady GCs, 2500+ lube, sized at .360

Win Super Cases
CCI 200 Primers
45 gr LeveRevolution
OAL; 2.427”
Velocity; 2384 fps
SD/ES fps; 28/85
PSI (M43); 37,900
SD/ES psi; 2,000/5,900

NOE 35 XCB 230 gr cast of COWW + 2% tin, Hornady GCs, 2500+ lube, sized at .360

Win Super Cases
WLR Primers
42 gr LeveRevolution
OAL; 2.453”
Velocity; 2314 fps
SD/ES fps; 18/59
PSI (M43); 41,800
SD/ES psi; 1,100/3,400

The use of LeveRevolution powder in the 35 Remington cartridge certainly boost the performance quite a bit. None of the reloads tested exceeded the SAAMI MAP for the 30-30 and, thus, they should be usable in Marlin 336 rifles, SS actions and bolt action rifles. chambered in 35 Remington.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-26-2022, 08:55 AM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?25226-RPM-Threshold

The RPM threshold is area of velocity where the RPM created by the twist accentuates the defects in cast bullets creating excessive yaw, wobble and pitch of the bullet during flight. Defects in cast bullets are caused by imbalance due to out of round casting, other casting defects, or unwanted obturation during acceleration. Exactly where that threshold is depends on numerous things but those that mostly affect the threshold are; burning rate of powder, quality of cast bullet, design of cast bullet, alloy, fit of bullet to throat/leade and twist of the rifling. I've found over the years that with normal commercial moulds generally available (what most of us use), casting quality bullets of WWs or harder, with proper lube and fit to the throat when using medium to slow burning powders the threshold is in the 125-140,000 RPM range. If we are using the old '06 with a 10" twist and 311291 then the threshold translates to somewhere between 1735 fps and 1944 fps we will find the best accuracy when using 4895 or a slower burning powder.

With a faster powder such as 2400 best accuracy will come at a little slower velocity as the faster powder has a faster acceleration. This means unwanted obturation will occur at lower velocity so accuracy will deteriorate quicker than when the medium/slower powders are used.

The cast bullet bench rest boys really slow twists down which does help considerable. If one is building a special purpose cast bullet rifle then twist is of major importance. My 14" twist Palma barrel (27.5" long) in .308 Winchester shoots regular cast bullets (30-15--FN, 311291, 311041, 311299) with excellent accuracy in the 2400+ fps which is 125,000 RPM, right at the beginning of the threshold. Really, really best accuracy comes down in the 21-2200 fps range which is around the 110,000 RPM area Junior1942 talks about. Same bullets in my M70 target with 12" twist 26" barrel loose accuracy at the same RPM as the 14" twist barrel. My M788 with a 10" twist 22" barrel does exactly the same. With the 12" twist that is in the 21-2200 fps range and with the 10" twist it is in the 1740-1940 fps range.

I've found that most regular heavy for caliber cast bullets shot out of regular rifles shoot best in the 125-140,000 RPM range with medium to slow powders. One merely must know the twist of the rifle to figure what the velocity range for best accuracy will be.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-26-2022, 09:03 AM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?356607-NOE-30-XCB-30x60-XCB-600-yards

NOE 30 XCB, 30x60 XCB, 600 yards

Lots of pics on this one too, so best to follow the link.

quack1

12-26-2022, 09:34 AM

This thread definitely needs to be added to the sticky list.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-26-2022, 09:35 AM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?28207-RPM-Test-a-tale-with-three-twists

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?28807-RPM-Test-a-tale-of-three-twists-Chapter-2

Chapter 1; the test criteria

So why is it that when we push our cast bullet out of our accurate 30-06 we get very good accuracy at 1800 fps or so but when we push the bullet to 2100 fps we get pretty poor accuracy? Is there really an RPM threshold for cast bullets which establishes where the accuracy capability will deteriorate if the RPM threshold is exceeded? That seems to be the question. Just what do we mean by “RPM threshold”. The RPM threshold is that range of RPM where almost all cast bullets will lose accuracy if exceeded. For practical purposes when using a gas checked cast bullet with a BHN of 14-18 the RPM threshold is between 125,000 RPM and 140,000 RPM. But let us remember here that a “threshold is not a ‘limit’.

Thus those RPM threshold figures are not hard and fast as some things like a too soft alloy or too fast a powder can lower the threshold. Conversely, other things like a harder alloy or a slow burning powder can raise the threshold. However the RPM threshold is pretty consistent when we use cast bullets of designs that are readily available through commercial venders and are what most cast bullet shooters use. It is also these same designs that commercial bullet casters offer. Given a medium or slow burning powder we know that accuracy improves as the consistency of the internal ballistics improves. At a certain velocity accuracy begins to deteriorate. Since the RPM of a bullet is directly related to the twist (or show fast the bullet spins) of the barrel and the velocity at a certain point the RPM creating higher centrifugal force) overcomes the rotational stability of the bullet and accuracy decreases. The RPM threshold can be lower or the RPM threshold can be crossed into higher velocities if we use specialized cast bullet designs or tweak the loads in other ways. But for the most of us who use regular cast bullets the RPM threshold appears to be real and we need to understand it.

For a bullet to fly straight the center of form should coincide with the center of gravity and the center of spin must then coincide as closely to those as possible. When these centers do not coincide we have an unbalanced bullet that does not fly straight. A bullet thus imbalanced may wobble, it may yaw and/or its flight path may corkscrew around the intended flight path. The degree of these imbalances directly affects the accuracy or the ability to hit the same spot on the target. In basic terms an imbalanced bullet does not fly straight.

Can we demonstrate an increase in RPM above a certain threshold overcomes the rotational stability and decreases accuracy? Can we measure if and when bullets become more imbalanced? Will there be a direct correlation between measurements of imbalance and inaccuracy? All of these are good questions and the answer to all of them is yes. Let me explain but first I will describe the 3 test rifles.

All three rifles are chambered in .308 Winchester. All three are accurate with jacketed bullets and cast bullets. All three have free floated barrels. The three rifles have three different twists. The three test rifles used are; the 10” twist rifle is a M1909 Argentine Mauser with a 24” heavy sporter barrel. It has a Timny trigger set at 2 lbs. It has a 10X Weaver MicroTrac scope on it. This rifle is capable of consistent MOA accuracy with quality bullets. The 12” twist rifle is a M70 varmint rifle with heavy 26” barrel. The trigger is also set at 2 lbs. It has a 3x12 Redfield Ultimate scope on it. This M70 is capable of ½ MOA with match bullets. The 14” twist rifle is a M98 Mauser with a 27.5 barrel of Palma taper and weight. It too has a 2 lb trigger. This rifle has a 16X Weaver T16 on top. It is also capable of ½ MOA with match bullets.

What about the test loads? Well I will use the exact same loads in all three rifles. I will compare the accuracy of each rifle unto itself. In other words each rifle and it’s bullets flight will tell us when that rifles accuracy begins to deteriorate. The loads used in all three rifles will be the same and it is then when accuracy deteriorates in one rifle the RPM of that rifle with that load is comparable to the RPM of the same load in the other rifles.

Now to explain how we can measure if and when a bullet becomes imbalanced. I will use an Oehler M43 Personal Ballistics Laboratory to provide these measurements. The M43 will tell us the Time Of Flight and give us the Ballistic Coefficient of the bullet by measuring the muzzle velocity and the down range velocity. Along with the TOF and BC it will provide Standard Deviations and Extreme Spreads for these. A bullet that is not flying straight (imbalanced and inaccurate) will slow down quicker, have a lower BC and the SD/ES at the down range screens will be greater than that of a bullet that is flying straight (balanced and accurate). Thus if we have a bullet that is shooting accurately and as we increase velocity, with the attendant increase in RPM,
the accuracy decreases it tells us the increased centrifugal force of the higher RPM has overcome the rotational stability of the bullet and decreasing accuracy is the result. The M43 will also measure the chamber pressure of each round fired so we may compare how pressure may be affecting the bullet.

Now wait a minute you say, by increasing velocity we are increasing acceleration and the bullet is deforming in the bore through obturation and set back. That is the reason for the poor accuracy. Well that sometimes may be the case. However remember, we are using the same loads in each rifle so if the 10” twist rifle becomes inaccurate before the 12 and 14” twist rifles with the same load then we can assume it is the increased RPM of the 10” twist barrel is the culprit. Then if the 12” twist rifle also becomes inaccurate before the 14” twist rifle, all with the same load, then we have confirmed it is the increased RPM that is causing the inaccuracies.

To demonstrate the validity of these test methods a simple test was conducted with the 10” twist rifle. The M43 was set up with testing done at 100 yards. M118 Special Ball was used for the test. Now I think we can agree the 174 gr M118 bullet is not going to suffer any set back, bending, torque twisting or undue obturation during acceleration. At any rate, the test here is between regular M118 bullets and those I purposely unbalanced. If the regular M118 bullet suffers any of the mentioned deformations then the unbalanced M118 bullets would suffer the same deformations. So what we are testing is what the different effect of RPM will be on the balanced and unbalanced bullets.

This lot of M118 ammo, while 1.1 – 1.2 moa accurate in 12” and 14” twist barrels has not been much better than 2 moa in 10” twist barrels including M24 sniper rifles. And so it was with the M1909 with 10” twist. A ten shot string of regular M118 bullets was fired and they grouped right at 2 MOA. Then the ten shot string was then fired with the same lot (actually with the other 10 rounds out of the same 20 round box) of M118 that I had drilled a hole in the side to unbalance the bullet. I used a #31 drill and drilled the hole .06” deep removing 1.7 gr of the bullet in the side right in front of the case mouth. The M43 showed that the unbalanced bullets, when compared to the regular M118, averaged 5 fps faster MV, had a slower TOF, down range velocity was slower and had a lower BC. This is ample evidence the unbalanced bullets were not as stable in flight as the regular M118. The clincher was the group. The regular M118 grouped 2 MOA and the unbalanced M118 grouped into 6 MOA. Ample evidence of how the centrifugal force of the RPM affects the accuracy of unbalanced bullets. A picture of the two groups is attached.

How does this apply to cast bullets? Well most all cast bullets we cast are not perfectly round nor does the center of gravity coincide with the center of form. How much the cast bullet obturates, sets back, the nose bends to one side or the lube grooves collapse during acceleration depends on the hardness of the alloy and the fit to the throat. We should realize our beloved cast bullets for the most part are fairly unbalanced once they leave the muzzle. However with a normal alloy like WWS or #2 alloy GC’d cast bullets seem to withstand all this fairly well and given a reasonable fit to the throat they have good rotational stability and shoot accurately up to a certain point. It is at that point the centrifugal force of the RPM overcomes the rotational stability and the bullet shoots less accurately.

I intend to initially test two bullets; 311291 and 311466. Both will be cast from Lyman 2 cavity moulds. Alloy will be air cooled and the bullets have a BHN of 15-18. The gas checks will be Hornady’s and are seated with the Lyman 450 GC seater prior to sizing. The lube will be Javelina. Bullets will be sized in the Lyman 450 using a .311 H die. Powder will be H4895 with a ½ gr Dacron filler. Loads will work up in one gr increments from 26 to 36 grains. Cases are LC with the necks inside reamed with a Lee Target Loader for concentricity. All cases have been fire formed in their respective rifle and neck sized with a Forster/Bonanza Benchrest NS die. A Lyman .31 M die is used to expand the necks and flair the case mouths. The bullets are seated to just slightly engrave on the lands. Additional loads tested will be with two slow burning powders; RL19 and H4831SC.

Expected test velocities are expected to run from 1700 fps up through 2600 fps. Approximate RPM range of those velocities with each twist are:

10” twist; 122,500 – 187,000 RPM
12” twist; 102,000 – 156,000 RPM
14” twist: 87,500 - 134,000 RPM

When consistent high velocity loads (internally ballistic uniformity) are found additional tests will be conducted with the 10” twist rifle as it has the highest RPM potential. Those additional tests will be with different lubes (Lars), with the bullets water quenched out of the mould, will bullets cast of linotype and with bullets of various sizing (.311, .310, .309 and .308). Of course only one change will be tested at a time in an effort to see if the HV loads can be “tweaked”. I will even, to appease Bass, test with different barrel pressure.

Tests with the cast bullets will begin soon. Stay tuned for Chapter Two.

Larry Gibson

Addendum to Chapter 1; A picture of the two groups (regular M118 and unbalanced M118) are attached. Also, Glen's suggestion is an interesting thought. My thoughts on using a faster powder are since those who use the faster powders mostly use WWs that that would be the alloy to use. Just for sake of keeping it manageable three powders could be used, suggestions? I Could run that test at the conclusion of this test.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 06:38 AM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?51566-Blue-Dot-Hercules-vs-Alliant-test

Blue Dot; Hercules vs Alliant test
All

As promissed I finally had some decent weather and conducted the test. It is lengthy and will require several posts to put it all together.

Hercules Blue Dot VS Alliant Blue Dot; .44 Magnum

Date: 15 April, 2009
Location: Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Range, University Place, Washington
Time: 1300 – 1600
Temperature: 43 – 50 degrees F.
Atmospheric pressure: 29.92
Wind: 2-5 mph from 0530
Test instrument: Oehler M43 Personal Ballistics Laboratory
Test Cartridge: .44 Magnum
Test Case: WW Winchester
Test primer: Federal 150 Large Pistol
Test Powders:
Hercules Blue Dot lot #BD152 purchased 10-15+ years ago as the price was $11.89
Alliant Blue Dot lot #289 shift 2, Feb 22, 2008 with a price of $20.89
Powder charge weights: 14.5 to 18.4 gr in .5 grain increments with all charges weighed on a Redding
powder scale
Test Bullet: RCBS 44-250-K cast of 60-40 WW (new) – linotype alloy, weight 252 gr, sized .430 in
Lyman 450 and lubed with Javelina
Load OAL: 1.705”
Crimp: Case mouth crimped completely under edge of forward driving band
Loading dies used: RCBS with carbide sizer
Shots in test string; 5
Test sequence: a test string was fired with the Hercules powder then the subsequent test string was of the same charge weight of Alliant powder. Thus test strings were concurrent from 14.5 gr up through the 18.4 gr powder charge weight

Results:
The M43 PBL provides much information that would result in an overly long report. Pertinent to the question of the difference between the older Hercules Blue Dot and the new Alliant Blue Dot is the comparison of velocity and pressure per a equal charge weight of each powder. Thus I shall report the muzzle velocity (corrected to muzzle by the M43) and the pressure (rounded to nearest 100 psi so 20,500 psi will read 20,5) for each powder charge weight of both Hercules and Alliant Blue Dots. The format will read the powder charge with the initial H or A in front, the muzzle velocity and the pressure in psi(M43).
H14.5/1330/24,3
A14.5/1310/25,2
H15/1368/26,3
A15/1340/27,4
H15.5/1412/28,5
A15.5/1380/28,3
H16/1447/30,4
A16/1438/31,6
H16.5/1493/32,6
A16.5/1464/31,4
H17/1521/32,4
A17/1498/32,8
H17.5/1541/31,4*
A17.5/1527/31,4*
H18/1565/29,1*
A18/1569/24,4*
H18.4/1589/20,5*
A18.41583/23,0*

* Note; these pressures are not misprints.

Discussion/conclusion; the tests proved interesting to say the least. I did not find any incident or indication of “pressure spikes”. To the contrary I found that as the load (17.5 gr and above) exceeded 100% loading density and be came compressed the pressure curve became longer with less pressure. As the powder charge increased and compression of the powder charge became greater the bottom literally fell out pressure wise. The velocity increase per increased powder charge also began to lesson. I discussed this at length with Dr, Oehler. While he modestly says he is not a ballistician (he is a gentleman of the old school) he thinks that ignition is a problem with the compressed loads. A magnum primer may or may not improve ignition and would have to be tested.

Quite frankly I find the 17 gr load of either the Hercules or the Alliant Blue Dot powder to be a good practical maximum with this bullet. Looking at the graph of PSI vs Powder charge we see that 17 gr is the peak with both powders. However when we look at the graph of FPS vs Powder charge it is difficult to make that distinction when comparing them to each other. The old Hercules Blue Dot loading data per Lyman was 15 to 18.4 gr with the 429421 cast bullet. The new Alliant Blue Dot data as per the “New Edition” 48th Lyman manual is 14.5 to 16 gr with that same 429421 cast bullet. Interesting to note is that with 429244 they listed 14 to 17.4 gr of Alliant Blue Dot. The Lyman pressures are lited in CUPs which aren’t directly convertible to psi so I won’t go there.

Keep in mind also the TC Contender hasn’t the long throat or the barrel/cylinder gap of revolvers. Thus the pressures in revolvers would no doubt be a little less per given powder charge. I will work up the same loads with Alliant Blue Dot from 14.5 to 17.5 gr in the ½ gr increments. I will then test these in my Ruger BH 50th Anniversary with 6 ½” barrel. Of course I do not have a strain gauge on the Ruger so I will be depending on the chronographed results to give indications of a good load, a bad load or “pressure spiking’.

I’ve graphed out comparing the FPS gain per charge weight and the psi gain per charge weight.

Looking at both graphs it is apparent that with this test both the Hercules and Alliant Blue Dots are within normal lot to lot variation of each other. Basically, based on this test with a normal weight range cast bullet, there is no apparent difference between them either in burning rate or burning characteristics. Further testing with light weight jacketed bullets is in order but with the current situation I’ve not been able to find either 180 or 200 gr .44 jacketed bullets. Further testing in other cartridges such as the .357 and .41 magnums is in order also.

The photo of the fired cases is as they were fired in order. The green box contained the Hercules loads and the red box the Alliant loads. There was no indication of cartridges stick as all were easily extracted from the chamber of the Contender barrel with fingers. There is no appreciable indication of pressure by the look of the primers.

I shall continue to use Alliant Blue Dot as I find it to be a very fine powder for certain applications as id found the old Hercules Blue Dot to be. When using Alliant Blue Dot in a cartridge for which I only have older Hercules Blue Dot loads I will carefully work up loads again. I suggest anyone taking this data to do so with caution and work up your own loads as per instructions in all loading manuals.

Larry Gibson

No_1

12-31-2022, 08:01 AM

Done.

Members, please abide by the OP’s below condition: This is not a discussion thread. All discussion will be removed without notice.

Rob

Not a discussion thread! Please follow the provided links if you would like to discuss the topic!

With Larry’s permission, I’m starting a thread to compile his posts containing load testing information. Larry has posted a lot of great data over the years, and hopefully the mods will find it sticky worthy. Feel free to help with this project. Please copy and paste the post as well as a link to the original thread. Thank you.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:26 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?331992-30-06-M2-bullets

There were 3 different levels (velocities) of M2 Ball with the 152 gr FMJ flat based bullet produced. The black tipped armor piercing ammunition also had the M2 nomenclature but I'll disregard it here. In the last 10 years or so I have chronographed and pressure tested various lots of M2 Ball and a couple lots of M1906 Ball ammunition. I have chronographed them in my M1903 and in my pressure test rifle all which have 24" barrels. The 3 different levels of M2 ammunition are readily apparent.

I measure the pressure in psi" not CUPs sometimes still referred to as "psi", particularly in older literature and manuals. The SAAMI MAP for CUP measurement was 50,000 CUP and the MAP for PSI measurement (transducer/gauge) is 60,000 psi. Thus the 50,000 of the CUP measurement is equivalent to the 60,000 psi of the transducer/gauge measurement. As Scharfschuetze mentions the MAP for M2 Ball was 47,000 CUP or about 56,500 psi as measured by transducer/gauge. TM 9-1305-200 Small Arms Ammunition, US Army, dtd June 1961 specifies 45,000 to 50,000 psi (CUPs) for M2 Ball.

The M1906 ammunition tested produced right at 2700 fps as specified out of a M1903. It produced about 50 fps more out of the minimal chamber spec test barrel and ran right at 56,100 psi.......exactly what it was supposed to do.

Again, as Scharfschuetze mentions, in the mid '30s the supply of M1906 ammunition was running out and it was found the M1 Ball ammunition exceeded the safety fan of many training ranges, particularly National Guard training ranges. A request was made for ammunition specification comparable to M1906 ammunition be made for training use. This was the 1st level of M2 Ball ammunition performance. That specification called for 2700 fps with the 150 - 152 gr FMJ FB'd bullet. Just day before yesterday I tested a lot (DM 42) of that level of M2 Ball. It ran right at 2701 fps with 55,600 psi.

The 2nd level of performance of M2 Ball ammunition result in 1939 - 1940 when the National Guard Bureau requested a further reduction of velocity of M2 Ball resulting from the establishment of many newer training ranges (the National Guard had been mobilized pretty much completely by 1939) which did not have the safety fans to safely contain the original M2 Ball or M1906 ammunition. The request was for the M2's velocity to be reduced to 2550 - 2600 fps. This was done and I've found most of the M2 Ball tested made after the mid '50s falls into this level of performance. The velocities of numerous such lots runs from 2490 fps to 2600 fps. It appears from my testing all 3 levels of M2 Ball were produced by various arsenals up through the mid '50s with only the 3rd level produced after the adoption of the 7.62 NATO cartridge to replace the 30-06.

With the development of better powders (notably 4895 and ball powders) for use in the 30-06 cartridge in the early '40s we see the velocity specification for M2 Ball ammunition was upgraded to 2810 fps and sometimes reported as 2820 fps. This created the 3rd level of performance. I have tested numerous lots of this level also. Day before yesterday I also tested a lot of SL 52 which was loaded with 48.2 gr of extruded powder (probably 4895). It produce 2801 fps at 54,900 psi.

For practical shooting with either M1903/M1903A1s or M1903A3s I like to match the level of M2 ball performance to what the sights are regulated for. Of course if one is just shooting at one range then the regulation of the sights range doesn't matter. I shoot multiple ranges with my M1903A1 which is why I load to match the sight regulation.

The M1903/M1903A1 sights are regulated for the M1906 Ball or M2 Ball that gives 2700 fps with the 150 - 152 FMJFB bullet.

The M1903As sight are regulated for the 3rd level of performance; a 150-152 gr FMJFB bullet at 2810 fps. This is why many were frustrated with level 1 and particularly level 2 M2 Ball performance in M1903A3s.....the sights just didn't work right.

Quality M2 Bullets are almost impossible to get. In all my testing I found a great degradation of accuracy in US made M2 Ball after the late 50s, particularly that produced in the '60s and early '70s. The bullets are just of poor quality. Thus I use 7.62 M80 bullets which hold 2 moa +/- out of my M1903A1. The commercial made Hornady's have always given me the best accuracy, usually 1 1/2 moa +/-. I got a bunch of pull down M80s from Widner's about 10 years ago that hold 2 - 2 1/2 moa +/-.

I use 4895 for my loads with M80 bullets and in my M1903A1 load them to 2640 - 2650 fps which regulates the trajectory to the sight quite close out to 1000 yards. For use in my M1903A3 I load the M80 bullets to 2730 fps which then regulates the trajectory to the sight ranges to 800 yards. The use of M80 bullets may be what you'll also find to be the best option.

Larry Gibson

As a side note; I have also tested a few lots of M1 Ball. Day before yesterday I also tested a lot of M1 Ball (FA 28) . The velocity ran 2638 fps at 57,000 psi.....again, just as it was supposed to do. A lot of M72 Match was also tested. It ran 2624 fps at 57,100 psi......just as it should have.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:31 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?411053-Anybody-know-what-the-original-load-data-was-in-357-Magnum/page2

Having pressure tested both Hercules and Alliant 2400 under 150 - 162 gr cast bullets I've found 14.5 gr 2400 (doesn't matter which flavor as they are the same excepting lot to lot variation) under a 162 gr 358156 (fully dressed) and seat to and crimped in the forward crimp groove runs very close to the SAAMI MAP of 36,000 psi. The original loads were indeed heavier because at the time there was only the large N frame S&W revolver and the Colt Python revolvers made for the cartridge. Those level of loads were fine for those two revolvers as they were for the Colt and Ruger SAs chambered in 357 magnum. The problem arose with the introduction of the M19 K frame S&W revolver in 357 magnum. It was the darling of law enforcement for many years but it was quickly learned that a diet of those original loads would soon rattle the M19 apart. Thus the factories "dumbed down" 357 Magnum ammunition to the levels we have today. I have pressure tested quite a few various 357 magnum factory loads produced from the mid '60s through the late 2010 time frame. The tested psi's run from 23,000 upwards of 34,000 psi with most in the 28 - 32,000 psi range.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:34 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?440337-Jeff-Cooper-45-Auto-Load

Jeff Cooper 45 Auto Load

I believe, and had for many years, it is/was a typo printed in that column and in G&A's "Jeff Cooper on Handguns". I've many times read Cooper to say, and heard him say it once, the H&G #68 over 7.5 gr Unique was his suggested "social load" using a hard cast bullet. He also suggested any 200 gr hard cast bullet of 40 - 45 caliber at 1000 fps was about as good as it would get. I have never read what mould the "215" bullet actually was from. Perhaps someone knows?

For many years I've shot a lot of commercial hard cast (Greer and then Laser Cast) 200/205 gr cast SWC of facsimile to the H&G #68 over 7.5 gr of Unique in M1911/Combat Commanders with steel frames w/o any sign/hint of a cracked frame. I also use 18 lb recoil springs though. Velocities run 990 to 1050 fps.

Having pressure tested that load with Laser cast 200 gr SWCs and cast of Lee's 452-200-SWC I've found the pressures to run from 17,500 psi to 18,500 psi depending on the bullet weight and seating depth used. That is well under the SAAMI MAP of 21,000 psi for the 45 ACP.

My own 'social load" is the 200 gr Hornady XTP or Speer Gold Dot over 7.5 gr Unique. Velocity runs 1025 +/- fps out of my 5" M1911. The pressure of that jacketed bullet load runs 18,700 psi. Again, well under the SAAMI MAP.

Note; Testing Hornady 220 gr Critical Duty and CorBon 230 gr +p loads gave psi's out of the same test barrel right under the top end or 45 ACP+P MAP of 23,000. I was told they were loaded to SAAMI +P pressure. Thus the pressures are basically correct [there will always be a test to test variation] for the 7.5 gr Unique loads.

While I have shot a lot of those (they really tumble jack rabbits....) it is not my normal practice load not the load I used for IPSC. That load is the 200 gr SWC or 230 TC over 5 gr of Bullseye.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:43 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?28807-RPM-Test-a-tale-of-three-twists-Chapter-2

RPM Test; a tale with three twists

Chapter 2; Test 1 [311291 of 2/1 alloy]

Yesterday broke clear with the promise of some warmth and little wind so I packed up the three rifles, the M43 PBL, the test ammo and the usual other necessary accoutrements for the range and set off the Tacoma Rifle and Revolver Club to conduct the first test. The primary goal of this test was to see if we could determine what causes the 311291 cast bullet to loose accuracy at a certain level. On arrival at TRRC I proceeded to set up. The benches there are very solid benchrest designed and made. It was about 46-48 degrees in the shade of the firing line but was into the 50s in the sunshine. Wind was coming out of 11 o’clock at 1-3 mph. The target distance was 103 yards. The testing was begun using the 10” twist rifle and then the 12” twist rifle and finally the 14” twist rifle. The barrels were cleaned between every two 5 shot groups with 2 foulers fired before testing was resumed. All data was collected via the M43 using pressure recording, muzzle screens and down range screens. Besides information on the rifle, load and test conditions the M43 provided data on the following information;

Data recorded for each shot;
• Velocity at the muzzle screens
• Proof variance of muzzle screens
• Time Of Flight between muzzle screens and down range screens (in front of 100 yard target)
• The down range velocity
• Proof variance of down range screens
• Ballistic Coefficient
• Peak average pressure (psi.m43)
• Area under the pressure curve
• Rise of pressure curve
• Actual pressure curve

Summary of shot data for recorded shots in the group;
• Average velocity at muzzle screens
• Average Proof variance of muzzle screens
• Average TOF
• Average down range velocity at down range screens
• Average proof variance of down range screens
• Average Ballistic Coefficient
• Average peak pressure
• Average area under the pressure curve
• Average rise of pressure curve
• Standard Deviation of each of the above data averages
• The high reading of each of the above data fields
• The low reading of each of the above data fields
• The Extreme Spread of each of the above data fields.

The M43 also provided the additional data on Standard Atmospheric Ballistics;
• Bullet path from muzzle to 250 yards based on data entered and the actual BC
• 10 mph wind deflection
• Computed muzzle velocity (fps)
• Energy (ft-lbs)
• Power factor
• Recoil of the rifle

The testing was uneventful except for one low shot that hit one of the down range screens….ooops! It knocked a chunk of the plastic off but didn’t actually hurt anything. As the groups enlarged I did have a few rounds that hit on the edge of the window and didn’t read. This cut some of the group data to 4 shots instead of 5 and one group to 3 shots of recorded data. The first test was with the 311291 cast of 2 parts WW to 1 part linotype. This gives an alloy that with the bullets air cooled the hardness of the bullets is similar to Lyman’s #2 alloy. That has long been a standard for cast bullets. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the cases for all three rifles were fire formed to the specific rifles and “match prepped” as such. The primers used are WLRs. Two powders were used. H4895, a medium burning powder, was used with a Dacron filler in 2 gr increments from 26 gr to 38 gr. This was expected, and did, to give velocities from 1700 fps or so up through 2500 fps. The second powder tested was H4831SC, a slow burning powder, loaded in 2 gr increments from 40 to 46 gr to give from 90 to 100% loading density. The only sorting done with the 311291 bullets were to inspect them for wrinkles, voids of non fillout. None were weighed for segregation by weight. The gas checks used were Hornady’s. They were pre-seated with the Lyman GC seater on a Lyman 450 with the .311 H die and then lubed in the .310 H die. The lube used was Javelina. At no time during the test was there any indication of leading or “lube failure”.

All told in Test 1 I fired 75 shots for record plus 10 foulers through each rifle for a total of 250 shots . After returning home it seemed a daunting task to sort through the data, measure groups and put it into some format that is easily presented on this forum. I could list all sorts of numbers in various manners but that would just get confusing. From the listed data the M43 provides on each shot plus the averages let me tell you I’ve got lots of numbers! I decided instead to put the pertinent data onto graph form. That is a “visual” way to present information and it gives valid comparisons which are easy to see and make comparisons from. It is easy enough to pull additional information of the graphs if you want it. However the little squares of the graph did not scan well so if you want some specific information don’t hesitate to ask. I couldn’t get the graph on this computer to work right so I resorted to graph paper and hand plotted them.

Without further ado we might as well get to the meat and potatoes of the test. Graph #1 is a comparison of velocity and pressure. There was considerable consternation from some forum members that pressures would not be “exact” between the rifles. I stated that, disregarding the fact that there is always variation of pressures, even with the same load in the same rifle; the pressures need not be the same in each rifle. In fact they were not. When we graph out the velocity/pressure of the same increasing loads out of different rifles what we expect to see is a linear relationship between them. The linear lines for each (red = 10” twist, blue = 12” twist, green = 14” twist) should run fairly parallel. This gives us a valid comparison of the time pressure curves of each rifle with the other rifles time pressure curves. That’s exactly what we see in graph #1. As the pressure increases the velocity increases pretty close for the 10 and 12” twist rifles but the 14” had some problems. We also see a slight divergence as velocity increases. This is expected as the 12 and 14” twist barrels were longer than the 10” twist barrel so velocity increased more as pressure was increased. Thus the comparison between the rifles is valid as the linear progressions are close to the same. Were one of them radically different then it would be obvious a comparison wasn’t valid. However there is a slight anomaly with the 14” twist. We could pontificate as to why and probably come up with numerous reasons, most of which would probably be wrong. So let’s what the data can tell us regarding that anomaly.

The answer to the velocity/pressure anomaly with the 14” twist is rather simple and is demonstrated in graph #2. The relationship between pressure and velocity is encompassed in internal ballistics so we merely need to look at that data showing the consistency of the loads, i.e. how consistent the powder burns. Consistency of a load (given a test string of several shots) is most often expressed in Extreme Spread of velocity and Standard Deviation of the combined averages of velocity. SD tells us what a load may do but ES tells us what that load did do. Since I am interested in what the load did do I compared the ES consistency of the loads with the pressure. In graph #2 the loads of the 10 and 12" twists all had ESs of 50 fps or less. That is pretty good consistency given the spread of the loads velocities of 1700 fps through 2500 fps. The 14” twist had some early problems with the powder burning efficiently. We see the ES for the 2nd and 3rd test loads was considerably higher than the same loads in the 10 and 12” twists. That accounts for the small anomaly in the pressure curve of the 14” twist on graph #1. The other, and perhaps more important, piece of information graph #1 gives us is the time pressure curve of the same loads in the different twists. Obviously the curves are pretty close together and linear. Thus the time pressure curve or acceleration is very close to the same for each rifle.

Next let us consider the question; if the time pressure curves are the same then any deformation to the bullet due to acceleration will be close to the same. Thus if the deformation to each bullet is the same at the same rate of acceleration then any change to the form of the bullet will result in a change to the Ballistic Coefficient. Following that then won’t any changes to the BC be the same for each twist since any deformation of the bullet should be the same? To find the answer to that question we merely compare the BCs of the 3 different twists as the velocity increases (hence the acceleration increases and deformation of the bullet increases). Graph #3 provides the comparison of the BCs vs the velocities of each load in each twist. Let us remember that the BC in this case is a measured BC from the actual flight of the bullets not a guestimated one from some chart. These actual BCs measured the bullets ability to fly through the air efficiently. The higher the BC the less deformed and more stabilized the bullet was. It is readily apparent that the BCs stayed pretty much the same for all three twists during acceleration at all velocities and pressures. It is interesting to note that the BCs of the bullets from the 10” twist retained the highest BC at the highest velocity (acceleration). This is just the opposite what it would be as believed by some on this forum. The BCs from the bullets from all three twists stayed very close together and linear across the wide spectrum of velocity (acceleration) from 1700 to 2500 fps which obviously shows the acceleration remained constant regardless of the twist of the barrel.

So this is what we now know now about the same loads in the 3 different twists; the time pressure curve is the same, the acceleration is the same and the BCs remain the same. Let’s now take a look at the results on target. After all what we are looking at in conducting this test is the accuracy at higher velocity and why that accuracy goes bad. Graph #4 shows us the group sizes vs pressure. Whoa there! Something is amiss….if the time pressure curves are the same, the acceleration the same and the BCs are the same; then if the groups get larger as we increase velocity shouldn’t the groups get larger by proportionally the same amount? [Note; by “proportional amount” is an amount to compare the accuracy of each twist to each other. The proportional amount of increase is found by dividing the increased group size by the smallest group with each rifle.] However, what we see is that the groups do not get proportionally larger as velocity increases. The inaccuracy of the 10” twist increases 5.38 while the inaccuracy of the 12” twist increases 3.14 and 14” twist increases 2.08. Hmmmmmm……pressure curve is the same, deformation of the bullet from acceleration is the same then why doesn’t inaccuracy increase the same? Especially since graph #4 shows the group size vs pressure. But wait…there’s more (sorry, just couldn’t resist!). Doesn’t every one say that it is pressure that destroys accuracy? We do see that accuracy with all three twists is decreasing with the increase of pressure. If pressure was the only reason for the decrease in inaccuracy then the inaccuracy should be proportional and it isn’t. We also see inaccuracy increases much more with the 10” twist than either the 12 or 14” twists. We also see the 12” twist’s inaccuracy to increase more rapidly than the 14”s inaccuracy. Again, if it was pressure that increased the inaccuracy then why doesn’t the inaccuracy of all three twists increase equally as the pressure increases? It seems there is something other than pressure adversely affecting accuracy and to a much greater extent.

Okay, let’s look at it one more way just to be fair. Graph #5 compares accuracy to velocity. Something wrong here again….that dreadful 10” twist is once again being more inaccurate by a greater proportional amount than either the 12 or 14” twists. How can this be? We know the acceleration is the same; the BCs are the same so the deformation of the bullet is the same yet the 10” twists inaccuracy is disproportional to the 12 and 14” twists. It should be the same amount of inaccuracy, right? The lines for each twist should be linear right? Yet the proportional inaccuracy are not the same between the twists nor are the lines linear. Have we missed something? Is there another game afoot? We’ve a good handle on the internal ballistics. We know about the terminal ballistics as the groups are self revealing. But have we really looked hard at the external ballistics (the bullets flight)? We know the bullets are stable, we know the BCs are getting smaller telling us there is some deformation from the acceleration. We know the 10” twist had the highest BC at the highest pressure and velocity so why isn’t it as accurate as the 12 and 14” twists?

Let us look at graph #6. It is a comparison of group sizes vs RPM. Note the very, very obvious adverse affect that the increasing RPM has on the accuracy of the 10” twist. That red line really climbs up there! Also note that area of RPM where the majority of accurate groups fall; it is in or below the RPM threshold. Also note that in or at the top end of the RPM threshold is where accuracy begins to deteriorate.

The tests with H4831SC seemed to be headed the same way but were inconclusive as top velocity was only 2287 fps with 100% loading density. The 10” twist velocity was 1928 fps through 2287 fps with groups running from 2.4” to 3.3”. RPM was 138,900 to 164,700. Conversely the 14” twist went from 1906 fps to 2265 fps. Groups ran .95” to 2.2”. RPM was 98,000 to 116,600. The highest peak pressure was 39,600 psi.M43. Thus I couldn’t get into a high enough pressure/RPM range with all three twists to make any comparison.

I am not going to conclude that there is an RPM threshold as the test is not complete. I shall wait until I conclude the test before giving a firm conclusion.

Chapter 3 will be to see how I can improve on and perhaps push the threshold with 311291 in all 3 twists. I have some cast of linotype (that’s pretty hard stuff). I have them weighed to a +/- ½ gr. I weighed them “dressed” for summer (that’s with just the GC on, not fully “dressed” with lube too). I plan on using Varget and RL15. Probably won’t get around to testing those until May.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:46 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?365213-M1-Garand-and-M1A-gas-systems

Your M1A has a completely different gas system than the M1 Rifle.

The M1A gas system is designed to and will cut off gas from the gas port as soon as the gas piston starts moving rearward. The amount of pressure at the gas port required for function is quite low. Using a medium burning powder such a 4895 will give reliable functioning from loads with chamber pressures of 20,000 psi upwards of 62,000 psi.

M118 Match with the 174 gr FMJ has been loaded with ball powders (WCCs) and extruded powder (mostly IMR4895).
M118SB was loaded with ball powder (WCC).
M852 with the 168 MK was loaded with IMR4895.
M118LR with the 175 MK has been loaded with IMR4064, RL15 and IMR4895.

M61 AP, M59 and M80 Ball and the M62 Tracer have always been loaded with ball powder (WCC).

As mentioned you'll want to stay away from the "Light Magnum" or "Extended Range" type of cartridges and not use slower burning powders at 7,62 or 308W level MAPs. The reason is not because the action or gas system can not handle the pressures (within .308W MAP level) but because the time/pressure curve is too slow for proper functioning. With a proper time/pressure curve the chamber pressure will drop allowing the case to contract and release it's grip on the chamber walls as the bolt begins opening. Too slow a time/pressure curve and the case is still gripping the chamber when primary extraction starts. that can cause damage to the oprod cam surface, bend or break the oprod, damage the bolt or cause the extractor to pop out.

M118SB and M118LR are loaded to 61,000 to 64,000 psi ( have measured the pressures not guestimated) but have a time/pressure curve still suitable for the M14/M1A gas system. That is the ammo that has been used in the M14 SDMR, M24 and M40 sniper rifles the last 15+ years.

Since 1972 I have used H4895, AA2230 and H335 powders with quite successful loads in M14s and M1As with jacketed bullets weighing 100 to 180 gr. With cast bullets I favor 4895 (any flavor) with a Dacron filler under 164 to 210 gr at 1850 to 2400 fps (depending on barrel twist).

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:51 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?432885-Larry-s-black-powder-curve-tests

45-70 BP Time/Pressure Curves (Traces)

Before I post the Time/Pressure Curves (TPCs) let me briefly discuss/explain what we will see. Savvy Jack, in his posts, mentions the anomalies in the TCPs. What you see there is far more common than thought, not only with strain gauge measurements but with oscilloscopes and with piezo-transducer TPCs.

Ever wonder why you almost always, with any published pressure data, only see the “average” and almost never see any actual TPCs from that data? The answer is it would scare the public to death and no one would buy their products. We all like to think all measure TOCs are nice and smooth going up and coming down just like these;

Attachment 290444

Well, I’m here to tell you that those types of TPCs do happen they are not all like those. Some are very, very jagged, ragged, uneven or what ever you want to call them. In particular, lower pressure load TPCs are subject to numerous irregularities based on the type of test firearm, the thickness of the barrel over the camber and the Time Of Rise (TOR and the peak psi generated. First time I tested some Winchester and Remington 38 SPL factory WC it though everything went haywire because the TPCs looked like the teeth on a course saw blade. I then tested some Winchester 158 gr LHP +P and got nice smooth TPCs. I am no longer surprised at the anomalies that can be seen. It’s why I always have some “reference” ammunition with me when testing to double check if necessary.

The appearance of “noise” in the TPCs can be generated by many things. Savvy Jack mentions what caused the noise in his TPCs. The chambering of a round, the action closing, barrel whip, burning of powder outside the muzzle, the firearm recoiling, etc. can all seemingly cause “noise” in the TCPs along with low pressure giving inconsistent “stretch” in the barrel steel over the chamber.

So, with that, please don’t get too exited by what the TPCs look like. It’s why the analyzing of the other pressure test data is important in comparison. I have included that test data with each TPC posted. I’m going to post here a menagerie of tests including smokeless and duplex loads along with BP loads.

First let’s take a look at some old original REM-UPC cartridges. The charge under the bullet was a compressed 70 gr charge of BP. The granules were smaller than Goex fffg BP. We see the average pressure was 22,000.

BTW; the black “tick mark” at the end of the TPC is muzzle exit.

Attachment 290445

A load I developed years ago for hunting with my trapdoor target/sporter was with a commercial cast [Liberty bullets…no longer in business] bullet with a wide FP meplat of 20-1 alloy. I bought them “as cast” at .461 diameter and hand lubed them with my beeswax/olive oil lube. It is a duplex load [7 gr 4759/52 gr Goex Cartridge] and under that 405 gr bullet it generated an average pressure of 20,900 psi. As we see the accuracy at 100 yards was excellent. That test was done in 2011. The TPCs look a bit flatter but that was I hadn’t yet changed from a 2 millisecond time to a 4 milliseconds time.

Attachment 290446

Another commercial cast bullet (Desperado Cast Bullets) of 415 gr cast of 20-1 alloy over 70 gr of Goex Cartridge. The average pressure was 19,100 psi.

Attachment 290447

The Lee 405 HB over 70 gr of Goex Cartridge [my 1873 45-70 service rifle duplication load]. The average pressure was 17,500 psi.

Attachment 290448

The Lee 405HB over 70 gr of Goex Superfine. Superfine was a transitional powder available between Dupont discontinuing and Goex using that trade name. Superfine has granuals smaller than those of current Goex ffffg powder. It also gives pressures in ffffg BP range. A previous test of 70 gr Superfine gave an average pressure of 24,600 psi. This is a duplex load with 7 gr 4759 under 54 gr Superfine gave an average pressure of 25,000.

Attachment 290449

A duplex load under the 405HB bullet with 7 gr 4759 under 54 gr Goex Cartridge gave an average pressure of 20,400 psi. This is my most used M1873 service rifle 45-70 load. It is quite clean shooting and many, many rounds can be fired with little to no fouling. No wiping of the bore is needed and neither is a blow tube.

Attachment 290450

My 45-55 Carbine load for use in my M1873 carbine (H&R) is also a duplex load using 5 gr 4759 under 49 gr Goex Cartridge with the 405HB bullet. The average pressure rans 17,700 psi.

Attachment 290451

I plan to put a strain gauge on my H&R Officers Model which has thinner barrel steel over the chamber. Perhaps that will give me smoother TPCs(?). Also with Goex being out of business I will perhaps pick up some other brand of BP?

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:54 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?369858-Pressure-Question-GC-vs-PB-(original-thread-by-TCLewis)-test-results

Pressure Question: GC vs PB original thread by TCLewis
A couple months ago TCLewis started this thread; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...Question-GC-PB where upon he asked the following;
“I am addressing this to Larry Gibson since he is the only one here that has pressure measuring equipment (that I know of).

Do you get any difference in pressure between gas checked and plain based boolits in the same loading?”

I responded with: “That's a good question. I've not made that comparison. I could check my records but I hesitate to post any speculation based on comparing the pressure tests of different bullets probably conducted at different time/dates. The variables would be there and I'd get the usual raft of manure from the usual critics here.

However, if someone has a mould with different cavities that casts the same bullet for use with and without a GC I could conduct a test. All that's needed would be a quantity of each cast of the same alloy. I would size, GC the ones for GCs and lube them for the test. Fifty of each would be sufficient for sighters/foulers and 3 ten shot test strings of each. Any takers?”

In short order Time Killer responded with this post; “ Larry I have one that I believe you are very familiar with the NOE 310-165-FN-H3 (30XCB). Its a 2 banger one gas check one plain base. If it will work how would you like them cast. I can do soft lead + tin for fill out, 50/50 soft lead / wheel weight + tin for fill out, or Wheel weight + tin if needed for fill out. Air cooled or water dropped let me know your preference. It will take me a few days to cast them as I have a busy work week but I would be happy to help out for the test.”

After a PM or two it was agreed that Time Killer would cast some of the XCBs, with and without G, and get them off to me. Time to for him to cast he bullets and mail to me, cogitating how to conduct the test, prepare the bullets and load them and a hunting trip (successful) have all passed and I am presenting the test results here. I decided to start a new thread as the other is already 3 pages long.

With the bullets Time Killer sent an explanation; he cast the bullets of COWW alloy + a little more than 2% tin added. The bullets were cast in an NOE 2 cavity mould for the 310-165-FN “XCB” bullet. One cavity gave bullets with a GC shank and the other was a PB XCB bullet. Other than the GC/PB the bullets were identical.

We assume a PB bullet of the same design will be heavier than the GC’d version because that’s what everyone has said for as long as I can remember. This is a prime example of why we should not assume as there is always some devil on the details. Picking 10 bullets of each style, GC and PB, and weighing them I found the GC’d bullets average weight was 163.7 gr. The PB’d XCBs averaged 166.4 gr. So far the assumption was correct……however, that is not the way we shoot them. We shoot them fully dressed.. both bullets mic’d out at .311 on the drive bands so I lubed both styles in a Lyman 450 using a .311 H&I and White Label 2500+ lube.. Hornady GCs were seated onto the GC XCBs. The fully dressed weight for the GC’d XCBs was 170.5 gr. The PB’d bullets, fully dressed, came in lighter at 168.4 gr.

I decided a fair, comprehensive and extensive test would be to test both bullets in 3 different cartridges, with 3 different rifles using 3 different burning rate powders (Unique, 2400, RL7) with equal loads of each powder in each cartridge. That amounted, using 10 shot test strings, to 180 test rounds plus foulers and sighters. I got everything together and waited for a front to move through for a decent test day. Yesterday I spent the day at the range and completed the testing. Here is the results.

Three cartridges were used; the 30-30 tested in a 21” Contender Carbine barrel, the 308W tested in a 24” barreled test rifle and the 30-06 tested in a similar 24” barreled test rifle. All 3 test barrels had a strain gauge affixed over the chamber at the SAAMI prescribed location for transducer psi measurement. The strain gauges are connected to the Oehler M43 PBL system which measures the psi. All 3 test rifles have been “calibrated” using factory “reference” ammunition. After setting up the M43 at the range it does it’s own “system check” and then was tested with my standard 170 gr load in the 30.30. The results of that test were consistent with what is expected of that ammunition so I began testing. The weather was fair with temps running 70 – 75 degrees, barometric pressure remained steady at 29.98 +/- and the humidity remained steady at 25% +/-.

Test ammunition; WLR primers were used throughout. The same lot of cases was used for each cartridge; FC cases in the 30-30, LC Match in the .308W and Winchester cases used in the 30-06. A Lyman .31 M-dies was used to expand the necks for the .311 sized bullets. No attempt was made to work up an “accuracy load”. Each load was selected based on velocity levels that are usually used for cast bullets of 165 – 170 gr respective of each powder. The bullets were seated to just touch the leade of each chamber. No wad or filler were used. Each cartridge was loaded into the rifle with the powder positioned at the rear of the case. With the Contender the barrel was pointed up as the action was closed. With the 308W and 30-06 bolt action test rifles the SAAMI “twist” loading technique was used.

The loads were;
30-30
Unique; 7 gr
2400: 14 gr
RL7; 19 gr

308W;
Unique; 10 gr
2400: 16 gr
RL7: 23 gr

30-06:
Unique; 12 gr
2400; 18 gr
RL7; 25 gr

I graphed out the psi results with a chart for each powder showing all 3 cartridge results. The GC’d XCBs are the blue column and the PB’d XCBs are the red column. The psi graph is charted on the left running from 0 psi to 32,000 psi. In the base of each column is the actual measured average psi. The blue column for the 30-30 on the Unique chart has 21.4 which means the measured average psi for the 7 gr load was 21,400 psi.

Attachment 229135Attachment 229136Attachment 229137

Velocities (the M43 gives a corrected velocity to the muzzle) in fps;
30-30
Unique; GC-1181, PB-1194
2400; GC-1688, PB-1701
RL7; GC-1768, PB-1732

308W
Unique; GC-1384, PB-1432
2400; GC-1726, PB-1718
RL7; GC-1811, PB-1792

30-06
Unique; GC-1455, PB-1501
2400; GC-1709, PB-1691
RL7; GC-1815, PB-1777

Cartridge

Pressure ES/SD information listed by;

Powder; velocity - GC = ES/SD [psi =ES/SD] PB = ES/SD [psi =ES/SD]
Velocity is in fps.
A psi figure of "25" would be 2,500 psi.

30-30
Unique; GC = 43/13 [25/10] PB = 24/14 [5/3]
2400; GC = 57/17 [49/14] PB = 28/11 [52/21]
RL7; GC = 71/24 [71/21] PB = 94/38 [42/21]

308W
Unique; GC = 47/13 [15/5] PB = 38/10 [15/6]
2400; GC = 27/9 [24/9] PB = 18/7 [9/4]
RL7; GC = 33/11 [36/12] PB = 29/11 [18/8]

30-06
Unique; GC = 54/20 [24/8] PB = 17/7 [14/6]
2400; GC = 14/4 [25/6] PB = 37/13 [21/9]
RL7; GC = 38/11 [44/15] PB = 24/9 [5/3]

As to accuracy; while I didn't make any attempt to work or pick an accuracy load for any of the 3 rifles I did shoot for group at 100 yards. Any direct comparison of accuracy would be meaningless as such. However, suffice to say, each rifle performed well within it's own accuracy capability. All 3 powders performed well with the GC XCB bullets. The .308W rifle gave the best group ever shot with cast in it with the 2400 load. All 9 shots tested went into a ragged 3/4" hole.

Of the 30 XCB PB'd bullets only the Unique load in each cartridge gave any semblance of accuracy and then it was only fair in the 30-30 and poor in the 308W and 30-06. The 30 XCB PB'd bullet loads with 2400 and RL7 gave abysmal accuracy with few hits on the target....... judging by the cylinder bore size pattern impact around the target on the berm behind. Severe leading occurred with those loads also resulting in cleaning prior to the next test.

In comparing the psi differences I see very little. In 6 of the 9 tests the GC’d XCB gave slightly higher psi. In 3 of the 9 tests the PB’d XCB gave slightly higher psi. The psi variation in 8 of the tests falls well within the test to test variation that would be expected and the 9th test is border line within any test to test variation.

Based on these test results I see no reason to give any thought as to the use of a GC or not raising pressures. However, there still could be a difference based on similar weight bullets of different design based on bearing surface. That remains to be tested.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 04:58 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?397658-Cast-vs-jacketed-pressure

Cast vs Jacketed Pressure

A couple examples;

357 Magnum
Winchester brass cases
WSP primers
7 gr Alliant Unique
Cast bullet alloy; COWW + 2% tin AC'd, BHN 13-14
All bullets seat to crimp groove with medium crimp
SAAMI MAP; 35,000 psi

Speer 158 SP; 32,500 psi
Lee TL358-158-SWC seated to 1st lube groove; 33,000 psi
Lee TL358-158-SWC seated to 2nd lube groove; 29,600 psi
Lyman 357156 seated to 1st crimp groove; 32,200 psi

44 Magnum
Winchester brass cases
WLP primers
21.2 gr Alliant 2400
Cast bullet alloy; COWW + 2% tin AC'd, BHN 13-14
All bullets seat to crimp groove with medium crimp
SAAMI MAP; 36,000 psi

Hornady 240 XTP; 38,400 psi
Laser Cast 240 SWC; 35,000 psi
Lyman 429244 258 gr; 36,300 psi
Lyman 429360 243 gr; 36,400 psi

With 9.5 gr Alliant Unique

Hornady 240 XTP; 29,200 psi
Laser Cast 240 SWC; 25,900 psi
Lyman 429244 258 gr; 26,700 psi
Lyman 429360 243 gr; 26,000 psi
Lee TL430-240-SWC; seated to 1st lube groove; 28,300 psi

Note; A recent test of 3 consecutive 10 shot groups of the same load (21 gr Alliant 2400 under the RCBS 44-250-K) gave a 2,100 psi test to test variation of the average pressure. That is normal and within expected test to test variation. In the 357 magnum one cast bullet load exceeded the jacketed bullet pressure. The Lee bullet is seated deeper than the jacketed. In the 44 Magnum all the cast bullets gave less psi than the jacketed but still were very close to each other. Were I to run the tests again the results may very well be different considering the variables previously mentioned along with test to test variation and lot to lot variation of components. Probably why SAAMI lists not only the MAP but also acceptable levels of pressure; the Maximum Probable Lot Mean (MPLM) and the Maximum Probable Sample mean (MPSM) for any lot of loaded ammunition. Listed pressures by SAAMI, CIP, any manual or those arrived at by a computer program are not "finite".

Thus in comparing psi from jacketed bullets compared to equal weight cast bullets listed in any publication one must be aware of the probable test to test variation. Not knowing how many tests the psi results listed in a manual are based on making a comparison is simply guess work. As I recall, in every manual I have read over the last 50+ years they have all stated not to assume a maximum listed load is "safe". They all state to work up to those loads and back off if any sign of excessive pressure arises. That is excellent advice and should be adhered too.....

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:01 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?389165-38-special-seating-depth-and-pressures

38 Special Seating Depth and Pressures

Pressure tested the 5.1 gr Blue Dot and 7.1 gr 2400 loads under the RCBS 35-200-FN today. Both gave very low pressure and velocity from the 7/8" Contender barrel. Accuracy for both loads (10 shot test each) was right at 2" at 50 yards......about as good as I can do with the 1.5X scope on the Contender.

Cartridge; 38 SPL (R-P)
Primer; WSP
Powder; Blue Dot (Alliant) 5.1 gr
Bullet; RCBS 35-200-FN, COWWs +2% tin AC'd, Sized .358 lubed with 2500+
Cartridge OAL; 1.64"
Velocity (muzzle); 798 fps, ES 59 fps & SD 42 FPS
PSI (M43); 11,500

Cartridge; 38 SPL (R-P)
Primer; WSP
Powder; 2400 (Alliant) 7.1 gr
Bullet; RCBS 35-200-FN, COWWs +2% tin AC'd, Sized .358 lubed with 2500+
Cartridge OAL; 1.64"
Velocity (muzzle); 785 fps, ES 73 fps & SD 33 FPS
PSI (M43); 10,700

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:03 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?142592-30-30-2400-amp-a-Dacron-Filler

30-30, 2400 & a Dacron filler

There have been several discussions regarding whether a dacron filler is “needed” with powders such as 2400, 4227, 4759, 5744 or 4198 under cast bullets in .30/.31 cal rifles. Some say the filler is not needed, some say it is and some even say it is dangerous due to pressure spikes.

My contention, based on considerable testing of loads with and without fillers, is that with light to medium weight cast bullets in the .30/.31 cal a dacron filler is beneficial by giving better consistent ignition and excellent accuracy. Whether or not the dacron filler is beneficial to you is your choice. I’ve not seen any indication of pressure spikes or other potentially dangerous problems associated with the use of a dacron filler during this testing or during the pressure testing of many test loads in different cartridges. I hadn’t used 2400 in CF rifle loads for quite a while so with the acquisition of a jug of Alliant 2400 I thought I’d work with it to develop a load for use with the GB C312-150-WFN in the 30-30 for use in my 21” Contender Barrel and in my 2 M94s.

The test bullets are cast in a Lee GB 6 cavity mould of WW + 2% tin alloy. They were inspected/selected for visual defects only, .014 aluminum GCs seated and then sized and lubed with Javelina in a .314 H die (as cast diameter). I then sized them at .311 in a Lee push through sizer.

The 30-30 cases were mixed manufacture with the flash holes reamed and were sized in a RCBS X-die. My 21” Contender test rifle 30-30 barrel is very sensitive to sizing and FTF is frequent if cases are not FL sized.

CCI 200 primers were used.

Test rifle was a Contender Carbine with a 10" twist 21" barrel. Scope was a 4X Weaver K4.

A M43 Oehler PBL was used to measure velocity and psi(M43). Start screen was 15’ from the muzzle and the M43 corrects the FPS to muzzle. Test strings were 10 shots at 100 yards.

Initial test loads were from 14 to 18 gr of 2400 in 1 gr increments without the dacron filler. The load at 16 gr proven the most accurate and quite consistent with the rifle loaded level on the bench. The average velocity was 1815 fps with a SD of 25 fps and an ES of 79 fps. The psi(M43) was 28,000 with a SD of 2,900 and an ES of 9,300. Group was 1.8”.

The 16 gr load without the dacron filler was then tested for powder position sensitivity by shooting a test string with the muzzle pointed down after loading and gently brought back to level to fire thus keeping the powder in the front of the case against the bullet. The average velocity was 1781 fps with the SD at 12 fps and the ES at 28 fps. The psi(M43) was 26,000 with the SD at 7000 and the ES at 1,900. Group size was 1.7” with the center of the group 1.75” lower.

Continuing the powder sensitivity test the muzzle was raised and then gently lowered to level for testing thus putting the powder at the back of the case against the primer. The average velocity was 1861 fps with the SD at 16 fps and the ES at 38 fps. The psi(M43) was 33,800 with the SD at 1,100 and the ES at 3,000. The group size was 1.9 and was 1.8” higher.

We see an obvious indication of powder position sensitivity. Positioning the powder forward and backward in the case both produced much more consistent ignition giving more uniform velocity and psi than with the powder just "level" in the case. While the group sized were relatively the same there was considerable vertical string giving a total group of all 3 groups of 4.82”. Thus we see a vertical stringing problem with accuracy depending on how consistently the rifle is shouldered and fired. On a target range when bench shooting this can easily be controlled and the vertical stringing alleviated. However, for me a potential 4.75 moa vertical stringing group in a field shooting environment where “positioning” of the powder prior to shooting is not practical is….well…just not practical.

Thus I proceeded to test the 2400 loads with a dacron filler. Previous experience dictated that an accuracy load with the dacron filler would probably be at a slightly lower velocity and with a lesser powder charge. I loaded 10 shot test strings of 13.5 gr to 15.5 gr of the Alliant 2400 and used a ½ - ¾ gr dacron filler.

The accuracy load proved to be 14.5 gr of 2400 with the dacron filler. The same cases and primers were used in this test. The average velocity was 1722 fps with an SD at 12 fps and the ES at 42 fps. The psi(M43) was 28,700 with the SD at 1,200 and the ES at 3,400. The 10 shot group was 1.4”.

No need to test powder position sensitivity as the powder is held in position against the primer by the dacron filler regardless of the rifles held position prior to shouldering and firing. Subsequent further testing of this load to 200 yards shows excellent accuracy. This is just what I wanted for this bullet in the 30-30. This load should be quite deadly on small to medium/small varmints and game let alone deadly on rocks, sticks, dirt clods and cow pies.

Note in M43 data printout the time/pressure traces and the consistency of the “Area” and Rise” data; we can see there is absolutely no indication of “pressure spiking”. Those are pretty much “picture perfect” traces. Also note that I often trace through the bullet holes in the target onto the data sheet for a group record.

As stated previously the choice to use or not use the dacron filler is yours. For me, I use the dacron filler with this and many other loads. I do not always use the dacron filler and list my criteria in the “Filler” sticky listed above in this forum.

This test demonstrates the dacron filler works when used as directed/intended and is indeed very beneficial to increasing ignition consistency where ignition is inconsistent because of powder position sensitivity with certain powder/bullet combinations and thus increases accuracy.

I’m also convinced, based on more and more testing, that the dacron filler is also beneficial in decreasing the possibility of pressure spikes or other dangerous phenomenon when used correctly with appropriate powders. This test is indicative of the same results obtained when 4227, 4759, 5744 and 4198 are used with medium range loads , especially with the lighter to middle weight bullets for the cartridge in question. I highly recommend the dacron filler be used with those powders when lighter to middle weight cast bullets for the cartridge are used, especially in the medium velcocity range under 1900 fps.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:13 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?381156-Drilled-Flash-Hole-Test-44-Magnum-and-45-Colt

Drilled Flash Hole Test; 44 Magnum and 45 Colt

Completed the test yesterday 29 April, 2019. Test firearm was a Contender with a 8.4” barrel in 44 Magnum and a 10” barrel in 45 Colt. A 2.5X scope is on the Contender. All measured data except group size (ctc widest shots) was obtained via the Oehler M43 PBL. I had prepared 10 cases, as previously posted, for each test string; 10 with standard flash holes and 10 with the flash holes drilled out with a #28 drill. Winchester WLPs were used in all cases for both cartridges.

Testing was conducted from the bench with a Hoppe’s Pistol Rest with the target at 50 yards.
Temperature was 80 degrees.
Humidity was 30%
Barometric Pressure was 29.63

44 Magnum;
Bullet was a 429360 cast of COWW +2% tin, AC’d and aged 10+ days before sizing .430 and lubed with BAC.
Cases were Remington R-Ps sized and loaded in RCBS dies.
Powder charge; 22 gr of Alliant 2400
OAL; 1.638

With Standard flash holes;
Velocity; 1622 fps (muzzle)
SD/ES; 13/41 fps
Pressure; 35,800 psi(M43)
Pressure SD/ES; 500/1,700 psi
Group; 3.1”

With flash holes drilled;
Velocity; 1599 fps (muzzle)
SD/ES; 17/47 fps
Pressure; 34,500 psi(M43)
Pressure SD/ES; 1,400/3.900 psi
Group; 3.2”

45 Colt:
Bullet was a 452-230-TC cast of COWW +2% tin, AC’d and aged 10+ days before sizing .454 and lubed with BAC.
Cases were CBC 45 Colt sized in RCBS steel FL sizer and loaded in Hornady dies.
Powder charge; 7.3 gr 700X
OAL; 1.598”

With Standard flash holes;
Velocity; 1060 fps (muzzle)
SD/ES; 7/23 fps
Pressure; 16,300 psi(M43)
Pressure SD/ES; 400/1,500 psi
Group; 2.9”

With flash holes drilled;
Velocity; 1059 fps (muzzle)
SD/ES; 4/15 fps
Pressure; 16,000 psi(M43)
Pressure SD/ES; 400/1,100 psi
Group; 3.15”

From the measured data we see there is essentially no difference. Again the sky did not fall, California did not slide off into the Pacific and still no Trump collusion with Russians……

Here’s the fired primers…..no difference in “flattening”…….

Attachment 240877

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:15 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?377629-Is-drilling-out-flash-holes-dangerous

Is drilling out flash holes dangerous?
Drilled Flash Hole High Pressure Test; 308W

In the past I have posted this explanation of why I drill out flash holes for use with low end reduced loads.

“I shoot many thousands of squib loads in various calibers but mostly in .30s. Many of these are rimless cartridges; 30-06, .308, .308 CBC, 7.65, 7.62x39 etc. The squib loads I shoot most often is a Lee 314-90-SWC-TL over 2.7 to 3.2 gr of Bullseye depending on the cartridge. Velocity is around 800 – 875 fps. I found a long time ago the shoulders do in fact get set back with light loads such as those. With many cast loads that use normal weight bullets in the 1600 to 2000 fps range there was little setback. It basically is a matter of the psi the load generates. It takes roughly 7,000 psi (depends on thickness and hardness of the brass along with how much the case needs to reach the chamber walls.

Measurements of shoulder set back or increase are easily taken with a Stoney Point tool. There have been basically the two theories regarding the cause; the firing pin blow theory and the primer theory. I ran the same tests with a fire formed case and inert primers; headspace was not changed. I then used the same fire formed case with live primers. In as little as two firings there was a measurable decrease in headspace. After five live primers the fired primer was noticeably backed out after firing. NOTE: this increase in headspace was with case taking LR primers. I never experience the problem with the .222 Rem or the 5.56 NATO.

Using #d drills I gradually increased the flash hole diameter with a progressively larger drill. Using a different fire formed case with each larger drill and firing 5 primers I then measured the headspace before firing and after. As the size of the flash hole increased the headspace decrease lessoned. With a # 29 drill I no longer got any decrease in headspace. I dedicated five .308 cases and five 30-06 cases that were well fire formed to their respective rifles chambers and drilled the flash holes with the #29 drill. Over the next few days I fired 50 shots with each case. There was an indoor 50” range where I was stationed so it wasn’t all that bad. After the 50 firings there was negligible change in headspace with any of the five cases of each cartridge. The results of my test firmly demonstrated to me that it was the force of the primer explosion that drove the case forward and set back the shoulder. The squib load does not have the pressure to expand the case out to fit the chamber. By drilling out the flash hole the force of the explosion mostly went directly into the case as there is little rim left to contain it. Two other side benefits that were unforeseen; the extreme spread and standard deviations of the velocity readings improved and the case position sensitivity of the small charge was greatly reduced.

As a result of the above tests I dedicated fire formed cases for squib loads for each rifle in rimless cases and drill out the flash holes. I have fired them many, many times now with no further change in headspace. Besides the squib load mentioned I also use 311631 (# may be wrong but it’s the 118 gr GC 32-20 bullet) with Unique in the above cartridges loaded to 1400 fps or so for a little more powerful small game load. The flash hole drilled cases work just fine for those. I now use the flash ole drilled cases for all my rimless cartridges with squib and really light loads.

Further pressure testing in the .308W the last few years indicated that loads with a psi above 12,000 will obdurate sufficiently to prevent the primer from driving the case forward thus setting the shoulder back.”

Since then seems like every time the subject comes up we get admonitions not to do so because it is very “dangerous” should the cases with such drilled out flash holes be used for a “regular” load. Having Previously tested such cases with “regular cast bullets loads creating 28 – 30,000 psi (measured via an Oehler M43 PBL) I have endeavored to ascertain the danger of loading such to the psi of “regular” loads at 55,000 +/- psi.

I had enough cases LC 92 7.62 NATO (308W) cases I was going drill out the flash holes to run a series of 10 tests using five 9 shot tests and five 8 shot tests. I would run a test with the flash holes as they were (.061”) and then increase them in size incrementally to .140”. That is the maximum size to enlarge the flash hole while still retaining enough of a shelf for the primer anvil legs to rest on. I used numbered (#) drills alternately from #44 up through #28 to enlarge the flash holes.

Here we see the cases with the flash holes drilled from “as issued” on the left to #28 drilled on the right;

Attachment 237040

The cases were FL sized in a RCBS X-die the loaded with pull down M80 bullets (147 gr FMJBT) ove 43 gr of IMR 4895 with WLR primers. The loads were tested on 2/25/2019 in my test rifle with a 24” barrel. The Oehler M43 PBL was used to measure velocity, pressure, etc. I could see no difference in the appearance of the primers after firing. Have a look for yourself;

Attachment 237041

Here is a compilation of all the data measured during the test. I’ll be darned if I can see any meaningful difference between the first load with “regular” .061” flash holes and the last test with .140”.

Attachment 237042

Throughout the test the sky did not fall, Humpty did not fall off the wall, the chicken made it across the road and no collusion between Trump and the Russians was found………and I’m still alive and the rifle did not blow up……… It appears, based on actual test results, using cases with drilled out flash holes might not be as “dangerous” as some thought………

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:19 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?349672-My-M1A/page2

RCBS X-DIES: A TEST

By Larry M. Gibson

Surprisingly, there was little fanfare with the introduction of RCBS’s X-Dies. All I saw were small blurbs in the trade magazines and mention of them in Rick Jamison’s Shooting Times column. Advertised to reduce or eliminate case stretch the question is; do they? My real interest was: Will they reduce case stretch, i.e. increase case life, of 7.62 NATO (that’s .308 WIN to you non-mil types) cases fired in M14/M1A’s?

The number of reloadings per case for M14/M1A’s is probably the worst of any rifle/cartridge combination short of the .303 Lee Enfield family. Incipient head separation is the reason for case loss. My experience with rack grade M14/M1A’s is five good firings per case with the sixth being a “throwaway”. This is only if the brass was fired in a bolt gun or M14/M1A to begin with. A match M14/M1A with a tight “match” chamber may get 1-2 more firings but more often not. If surplus once fired brass is used the first firing was more than likely done in a machine gun and only 1-2 reloadings/firings are possible before head separation.

Most head separations can be identified as a speckled crack forming around the case just ahead of the web at the expansion ring. This crack is sometimes quite obvious. Then on some cases the head will separate from the case on ejection. Many times both parts of the separated case are ejected. But sometimes only the head is ejected leaving the front half of the case in the chamber. The rifle picks up the next round attempting to chamber it and things get jammed up. Not good! The other question here; is there gas cutting damage to the chamber?

What causes this incipient head separation to happen? Simply put, on firing, the case expands to grip the chamber walls sealing off the gas pressure. When the bullet leaves the barrel pressures are reduced and the case contracts (not to its original dimensions) releasing it’s grip on the chamber walls and allowing extraction. However, it appears that the M14/M1A begins extraction prior to the pressure dropping completely. The cases do not contract as much as they would if fired in a bolt action for instance. Compounding the problem is the mil-specs for military chambers are somewhat generous in their diameter dimension to allow for functional reliability during combat conditions. When full-length resizing (necessary for M14/M1A) case walls are squeezed in first. This pushes the shoulder forward. The shoulder is then set back by the FL die and the brass flows forward into and elongating the neck. This increases the case length on each resizing considerably. Also, since the brass at the expansion ring expanded and was squeezed in and forward during resizing the case gets progressively thinner in that specific area. The result is, eventually, a head separation at that thinning location. Most mil-spec (US) chambers allow for a maximum case length of about 2.045”. I, like most M14/M1A users, have found trimming unnecessary. Incipient case head separation will occur, and cases discarded, before maximum case length is reached and trimming is necessary.

Are these RCBS X-Dies a cure for this? I decided to use my rack grade M1A to put them to the test. The issue GI barrel has quite a generous mil-spec chamber with headspace being within tolerance. This usually results in the fifth firing being the “throwaway” for brass in this rifle. It has untold thousands of rounds through it, many rapid fire. Accuracy capability is 2 1/2-3 MOA with M118 Special Ball or equivalent reload. This would be the best “worst case” test rifle. All rounds would be fired with the rifle loading from the magazine in normal semi-auto function. Slow fire single loading technique would not be used.

For ammunition I selected 10 rounds of LC 92 M118 Special Ball. A check for concentricity revealed a runout of .011” for one round with the others being .004-.007”.

My M118 equivalent load is:

BRASS: The 10 LC 92 cases from the selected M118 Special Ball
PRIMER: Winchester WLR
POWDWER: H4895 – 41gr
BULLET: M118 174gr
CARTRIDGE OAL: 2.8”

Other than deburring the flash hole, chamfering the case mouth and removing the primer pocket crimp, there was no special “case preparation” done. Cases were measured after each resizing with the minimum to maximum case lengths recorded. Concentricity was checked after each loading. Two cases (marked and tracked) consistently had .004-.005” runout with all others being .0005-.003” throughout the test. Neck thickness (outside diameter) was measured after each loading to check for brass flow into the neck area.

The test would be concluded based on any one of these criteria:

Any sign of incipient head separation.
Case buckled or dimensionally damaged/deformed during resizing.
Split neck or body.
Case length exceeding 2.045”.
Loose primer pockets.
Neck thickening to cause excessive runout (.010”).
Drastic deterioration of accuracy. (6th, 12th and 18th groups will
be fired in Fulton Armory Match M1A to verify accuracy)
Malfunctions caused by damaged (dinged up) cases.

All test firing was conducted at Tacoma Rifle and Revolver range.
The range has solid cement benches, which were used with sandbag rests front and rear. A 100 yard reduced “A” bull target was used. All targets were at 100 yards. I set up the Oehler 35P to chronograph all rounds fired for each 10 shot string. But as the test went on, and on, and on I quit chronographing after the 10th string. Chronograph results were consistent and showed no variation other than that normally expected. The LC 92 M118 averaged 2600 FPS and the M118 equivalent reload averaged 2575 FPS for the subsequent 9 ten shot strings chronographed.

The RCBS X-Die was installed in my Pacific single stage press and adjusted as per the instructions. It’s really quite easy. These dies differ from other FL dies in the dimension and design of the decapping rod. The diameter of the rod is larger and appears to act as a mandrill of sorts. There is a shoulder on it, which controls the length as the case. Apparently the case is prevented from stretching by the case mouth butting against this shoulder. Thus the decapping rod must be carefully adjusted as per the instructions. This shoulder is the key to the success of the die.

I found on the second resizing that the expander was really getting hard to pull through the necks. Also, the lengths of the cases were varying more than I thought they should. Case lubing technique was changed to standing the cases in a tray. They were then sprayed lightly with Dillon case lube. With this method the necks (lube gets sprayed lightly into the case mouth) pulled over the expander quite easily and the uniformity of case length dramatically improved. Cases are cleaned again to remove the lube. This should also remove the lube from the inside of the case neck.

Throughout the test case length never exceeded 2.027” and actually remained quite consistent. After the 12th resizing the necks had begun to thicken by about .001” at the shoulder to taper forward about 1/3 of the way to the case mouth. However, this did not adversely affect concentricity or accuracy.

The case rims got a little beat up but there were no malfunctions of any kind. This included the 2 firings in the match chamber M1A. Primer pockets remained tight throughout the test. I thought the case mouths would require rechamfering but they did not. Accuracy remained consistent with the rack grade M1A. The LC 92 M118 ten shot group was 2.8”. The last (15th) ten shot group with the M118 equivalent load was 2.4”, the average of groups 2-15 being 2.7”. Groups 6 and 12 were fired with the match M1A to verify the accuracy and both were 1.6”.

The test was concluded after the 15th firing based on incipient head separation. One case developed that slight speckled circle at the expansion ring. There was no clear-cut crack and probably no gas cutting happened. I may or may not continue the test with the rest of the cases.

Tabulated below are the measurements after each resizing:

RESIZING---MINIMUM----MAXIMUM---INCREASE
------------CASE--------CASE-----IN CASE
------------LENGTH-----LENGTH----LENGTH

1-----------2.013------2.019----------

2-----------2.021------2.025------.006

3-----------2.025------2.027------.002

4-----------2.025------2.027------.000

5-----------2.022------2.027------.000

6-----------2.023------2.025----(-).002

7-----------2.023------2.025------.000

8-----------2.024------2.026------.001

9-----------2.024------2.027------.001

10----------2.025------2.027------.000

11----------2.025------2.027------.000

12----------2.024------2.026----(-).001

13----------2.025------2.026------.000

14----------2.024------2.027------.001

Case length evened out at the third resizing and remained fairly consistent. Interestingly #’s 6 & 12 that were fired in the match M1A show a decrease in length! At #12 is where I detected a thickening (.001”) of the case necks in the shoulder area which tapered forward. Again this did not affect concentricity or accuracy.

Questions not addressed in this test:

1. Case life when used in match chambers or bolt guns?

2. Case life of cases already fired several times?

3. Case life of surplus once-fired (in machine guns) cases?

4. Case life of civilian manufactured (Rem,Win,Fed,PMC,et all) cases?

The answers to these questions will probably have results as positive, if not more so, than this test.

My technique for loading M14/M1A ammo now will probably be as follows:

1. Clean cases
2. Stand cases in loading trays and spray lightly with Dillon case lube.
3. Size with RCBS X-Die using Pacific single stage press.
4. Clean cases. Clean primer pockets. (On 1st resizing prep cases by: remove primer crimp, deburr flash hole, turn necks, trim to uniform length and chamfer case mouth). Conduct visual inspection for defects (split necks, head separation, etc.).
5. Load on Dillon 550B. Use a Bonanza neck size die or a Redding bushing die at station 1. This may or may not be necessary. The idea here is to iron out any dents the second cleaning may have caused in the case mouth and maybe uniform neck tension on the bullet.

This limited test revealed that; using the RCBS X-Dies, when reloading for the M14/M1A, one may expect 3 times or more firings per case as when using standard dies. I have been using Bonanza Benchrest FL Dies prior to this. I’ve never found the need for small base dies, as some recommend, for they really shorten case life.

This increase of case life is, in my opinion, truly astounding. Also, it appears case trimming is unnecessary. I would hope RCBS would make them in a wider array of caliber’s than currently available. I will buy more of them. When I think of the thousands of 5-6 times fired brass I have thrown out … Oh well!

Good luck, good shooting and good hunting

Addendum: I continued on with the test using the remaining nine cases. On the 16th firing another case showed signs of incipient
Case head separation. The other eight cases have been fired 20 times. I doubt I’ll continue on as 20 firings per case is enough.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:21 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?406689-Vicarious-44-40-Pressure-Testing

Vicarious 44-40 Pressure Testing

Savvy Jack has done considerable pressure testing of the 44-40 cartridge in a special fixture. His work mainly revolved around testing Black Powder loads. While commendable Savvy’s tests did not answer several questions on loads Outpost75 proffered. Winter had also set which severely restricted Savvy’s ability to test loads. Even though I test pressures via the Oehler M43 PBL (Savvy Jack uses a Pressure Trace System) I do not have a 44-40 test barrel. However, I do have a 44 Magnum test barrel.

Based on Savvy Jack and Outpost75s exchange I wondered if there was a way to correlate pressures obtained in the 44 magnum cartridges to the 44-40 cartridge(?). I had measured the case capacity of both cartridges using RL7 powder and found the case capacity of the cartridges (both were W-W cases) was very close.

Click image for larger version.

Name: 1218190644.jpg
Views: 31
Size: 23.2 KB
ID: 266142

I had read in the past that given equal loads the pressures in the 44-40 would be about 95% of those in the 44 Magnum. Thus I pondered to Outpost75 the following hypothesis;

“ …I’ve measured the capacities or W-W 44-40 and W-W 44 magnum cases every way from Sunday and found they have essentially the same capacity. So, if I pressure test loads in 44 magnum cases in the 44 Magnum test barrel might they not give comparable pressures or at least a useful correlation figure? “ It was decided through further discussion I would pressure test some of Outpost’s 44-40 loads and my own 44-40 loads in 44 Magnum cases. Then selected known pressure loads could be chronographed in the same OM Vaquero revolver with 7 ½” barrel using the original 44-40 cylinder and the 44 Magnum cylinder from my FTBH Ruger 44 magnum. The Ruger FTBH 44 Magnum cylinder fits, indexes and has the same barrel/cylinder gap as the original 44-40 cylinder.

Click image for larger version.

Name: 20171006_104838.jpg
Views: 31
Size: 163.5 KB
ID: 266143Click image for larger version.

Name: 20171006_112038.jpg
Views: 33
Size: 167.1 KB
ID: 266144

Thus, we theorized if the same load in the different cartridges in the same revolver gave essentially the same velocity [there is always be some variation to be expected though] then we could assume the pressure to be the same. If not, would the differences be consistent enough that we could deduce a correlation factor such as the “95%” figure previously mentioned?

With that in mind I received from Outpost75 test samples of two of his bullets to test; the 43-206H and the 43-230G, both from Accurate moulds. I supplied two bullets also; the Lee 429-200-RF and the Lee TL430-240-SWC which I most often use in the 44-40 cartridge. All the bullets were sized .430 and lubed with BAC. Those four cast bullets would cover the most used weight ranges used in the 44-40 cartridge.

Click image for larger version.

Name: 1221191523.jpg
Views: 33
Size: 26.9 KB
ID: 266145

The testing would be conducted in two phases; phase one would be pressure testing the selected loads in the Contender 44 Magnum test barrel. Pressure data would be measured and processed via the Oehler M43 PBL. Phase two would be chronographing in the Ruger OM Vaquero via an Oehler M35P chronograph with the start screen at 10 yards from the muzzle in both 44-40 cases and 44 Magnum cases selected from the pressure tested loads using the two different cylinders. Some of the 44-40 loads would also be chronographed in the Chiappa M92 carbine just for the information.

All cases used in both pressure testing in the Contender test barrel, the Ruger OM Vaquero revolver and the Chiappi M92 44-40 carbine in cartridges of 44 SPL, 44-40 and 44 Magnum were W-W cases. They were sized and loaded in RCBS dies for both cartridges. WLP primers were used throughout. Each bullet was seated to the crimp groove and a light crimp applied just enough to prevent bullet set back in a tube magazine. The TL SWC was seated to and crimped in the front lube groove. No set back or bullet jump was encounter during testing in the revolver or M92 lever action.

The initial pressure testing of the selected loads would be done in my 44 Magnum Contender barrel;

Click image for larger version.

Name: 0120201125.jpg
Views: 33
Size: 42.2 KB
ID: 266146

The line connected to the strain gauge (shown in the photo) is connected to the Oehler M43 PBL. The strain gauge is permanently affixed to the barrel located at the SAAMI recommended point of transducer location. Previous testing with “reference” ammunition [factory loads of known psi measurement] shows this gives very comparable psi measurement to piezo-transducer measurements. However, there is one thing we must understand when taking psi measurement with a strain gauge. It takes 7,000 + psi to fully obturate most brass cartridge cases to fully seal the chamber and to put stress on the chamber walls [this is why many low pressure loads have “sooty” cases because they do not fully obturate against the chamber walls]. Then, for the strain gauge to measure any “stress” on the barrel steel, it requires several thousand more psi to induce enough stress. Thus, the lowest psi I measured of any shot during the testing was 11,300 psi but since it was with the 44 SPL cartridge I decided to use the lowest measurement obtained in 44 Magnum cases during this test.

The lowest psi measurement during this test with the W-W 44 magnum cases was 13,300 psi. Ergo, I conclude that if any shot fired in W-W 44 Magnum cases does not register a psi measurement then the psi is less than 13,300 psi.

As an example; one of the loads Outpost asked to be tested was his favorite 44-40 load of the 43-230G bullet over 6.0 gr of Bullseye. He pondered if there was any real difference between older Hercules Bullseye and newer Alliant Bullseye. As I had been given an older square tin of Hercules Bullseye which was still sealed, I thought I might be able to answer that question. There was no date on the older tin of powder but it was obviously old…perhaps someone knows when Hercules stopped using those tins?

Click image for larger version.

Name: 1221191828.jpg
Views: 31
Size: 39.4 KB
ID: 266147

I opened the tin of Bullseye and inspected the powder and found no sign of deterioration, so I loaded a 10 shot string of 6.0 gr of the Hercules Bullseye along with a like test string but with 6.0 gr of current Alliant Bullseye. Both under the 43-230G cast bullet.

Neither test string registered any psi measurement thus we can conclude the psi was less than 13,300. I did track the velocity of each test shot. The average for the Hercules Bullseye load was 965 fps with an ES of 27 fps. The average of the Alliant Bullseye load was 961 fps with an ES of 33 fps. Essentially, we can therefore conclude, the Hercules and Alliant Bullseye powders are basically identical in burn rate per gr of powder. This and other testing demonstrate little change in burn rate, if any at all, between older Hercules and current Alliant powders of the same kind.

Phase one testing results;

All test strings throughout testing (pressure and velocity) were 10 shot strings. The data from loads that were pressure tested in the Contender 44 magnum test barrel;

44 SPL; Outpost75 requested a pressure test of his 44 SPL load with the 43-206H (213 gr) loaded over 6.0 gr Bullseye. It proved to be an excellent load in terms of its internal ballistics and on target performance. Accuracy was excellent, velocity was very uniform with an SD of 11 fps and an ES or 35 fps. The average psi was 14,000 with an SD of 400 psi and an ES of 1,200 psi…..an excellent load.

Data from 44-40 duplication loads tested in 44 Magnum cases in the 44 Magnum Contender test barrel:

429-200-RF (200 gr) with 6.0 gr Bullseye; no pressure measurement thus psi less than 13,300.

429-200-RF with 7.5 gr Bullseye; the average psi measurement was 17,800.

43-206H (213 gr) with 6.0 gr Bullseye; no measurement thus psi less than 13,300.

TL430-240-SWC (242 gr) with 6.0 gr 700X (my Vaquero and M92 load); no psi measurement thus psi less than 13,300.

429-200-RF with 25 gr RL7; only one shot gave a psi measurement of 14,800. The other 9 shots were less than 13,300 psi.

43-206H with 25 gr RL7; the average psi measurement was 17,300.

43-230H (233 gr) with 25 gr RL7; the average psi measurement was 20,300.

TL430-240-SWC with 25 gr RL&; the average psi measurement was 24,400.

Phase two test results:

Six loads were selected to be loaded in both 44-40 and 44 Magnum cases for chronographing via the Oehler M35P using the Ruger OM Vaquero 7 ½” barrel revolver with both its original 44-40 cylinder and with the FTBH 44 magnum cylinder. I’ll also list the velocities chronographed with selected loads in the 44-40 Chiappa M92 carbine with 20” barrel.

Load………………………44-40 fps…44 Mag fps…M92 fps

429-200-RF/6.0 gr BE……..947……… 1016………..1188

43-206H/6.0 gr BE………...903…………970………..1121

43-230G/6.0 gr BE………...881…………937

TL430-240-SWC/6.0 gr 700X..858……...937………..1061

429-200-RF/25 gr RL7……1053………..1130…… ..1428

43-230G/25 gr RL7………..1071……….1163

TL430-240-SWC/25 gr RL7..1157…........1204……….1488

All loads in 44-40 cases gave less fps than the same load in 44 magnum cases in the same revolver. The average difference is the 44-40 produced, on average, 93.4% as much velocity in the 44-40 cases as the same load did in the 44 Magnum cases. That does seem to suggest that what I had read years back about the 44-40 producing 95% +/- as much psi as with the same load in a 44 Magnum case is correct. So, is there a correlation we can use to determine safe pressure 44-40 loads with pressure testing being done in the 44 Magnum pressure test barrel? It appears so. Since all was equal in the revolver except the chambering and since velocity is directly related to pressure [all other equal as was in this test] I think we can safely conclude a load that produces so much pressure in the 44 Magnum will only produce 93 – 95% of that pressure in the 44-40 cartridge.

Note; nothing in this test is meant to imply any 44 magnum level psi is safe in any 44-40 chambered firearm. This test is only inferring we can find safe 44-40 level psi’s by testing 44-40 level loads in the 44 magnum test barrel.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:25 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?449233-unwinner-and-Wayne-Dobbs-belated-38-SPL-pressure-tests

unwinner and Wayne Dobbs-belated 38 SPL pressure tests
First of all, my sincerest apologies for the lateness of these tests. between a very ot summer here, high winds and illness in the family having me gone from home I wasn't able to get the testing done in a timely manner. However, I did manage to conduct the tests yesterday as i was home, the weather was nice with 75 +/- degrees and minimal wind.

Thesting was conducted using a 7.94" Contender barrel. The Oehler M43 PBL was attached to the Contender via a strain gauge. The test barrel is a 357 magnum barrel and using 357 reference factory ammunition test out compatible with the psi for that lot of factory ammunition. I first ran a test of my reference Speer 158 LSWC 38 SPL ammunition which consistently tests at 15,500 psi +/-. A test of that reference ammunition resulted in a 15,400 psi average. Thus all was well with the test system.

Wayne had sent some 147 gr WCs he had PC with a red PC. I loaded them in W-W 38 SPL cases over his requested 3.5 gr Alliant Bullseye load. I tested them with 3 different primers. OAL was 1.257". Test results;

Note; these psi's seem abnormally high for the load used. I am working on doing a retest so take these with a grain of salt.

With WSP primers the psi was 26,100
With CCI 500 primers the psi was 28,600
with Federal 100 primers the psi was 24,500

Wayne also sent along some Buffalo Bore Hard Cast WC (item 20D/20) non +Ps. The SAAMI MAP for standard 38 SPL is 17,000 psi and the MAP for +P is 20,000 psi.

The Buffalo Bore pressure tested at 20,100 psi.

unwinner sent some 358429s cast of 50/50 COWW/lead with just a "skosh of tin. They weighed out at 167.5 gr. I sized them at .359 and lubed them with 2500+. They were loaded in W-W 38 SPL cases, WSP primers with an OAL of 1.480". He had requested a test with 3.7 gr Alliant Red Dot. I loaded tests with 2.8, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 and 4 gr of Alliant Red Dot. The pressure test results;

With 2.8 gr the psi was 16,800
With 3.1 gr the psi was 16,900
With 3.3 gr the psi was 20,000
With 3.7 gr the psi was 22,400
With 4.0 gr the psi was 25,700

Sometime, on a past thread or PM, someone had asked me if i had ever tested 5.0 gr of Red Dot under a 158 hard commercial cast bullet in a 38 SPL case. I had some so I loaded a test string in Speer cases with Remington 1 1/2 primers. The OAL was 1.50". The test results

With the requested 5.0 gr Red Dot the psi was 24,500

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:27 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?407614-Pushing-the-envelope-with-Herco-in-38spl-P

Perhaps there is a reason most newer manuals don't show data with Herco in the 38 SPL? Could be with the advent and now common usage of piezo-transducer and strain gauge psi measurements which give a complete "picture" of the pressure curve they've found some powders aren't really suitable in some cartridges. Yesterday ran a pressure/velocity test of Alliant Herco in the 38 SPL. Pressure was measured in a Conteder with 7.94" barrel via the Oehler m43 PBL. Fps are muzzle velocities. I used the Lee TL358-158-SWC because when seated with the case crimped in the 1st lube groove it gives about the greatest seating depth of any cast 150 - 160 gr bullet. The Cartridge OAL was 1.465". The bullets were cast of COWW + 2% tin, lubed with LLA and sized at .358 and weight 162 gr fully dressed. Cases were Winchester W-W with WSP primers.

I loaded 10 shot test strings of 5.4, 5.7, 6.0 and 6.3 gr of Alliant Herco (purchased last year).

We mostly expect the measured pressure traces (time/pressure curves) to be nice smooth lines going up to max pressure and then tapering off to muzzle exit. Many times they do do that. However, many times they don't. Particularly with straight walled cases we many times see a secondary "bump" in pressure. Sometimes these are sharp bumps and are many times referred to as "spikes". I have seen a lot of secondary pressure bumps and some spikes over the many pressure tests I've conducted. As of this date I've never seen any spikes like the ones I got testing the Herco powder in the 38 SPL.

Now, before anyone gets all excited and wants to insinuate the Contender test barrel and/or the M43 has some " noise" in it before and after testing the Herco loads I ran a test string of Remington 125 gr jacketed HP factory loads. The traces were as smooth as one would expect w/o any bumps or spikes. Previous test with that Lee bullet have also produced smooth traces with other powders. Thus the test equipment was good leaving suspect the Herco Powder.

The test results;

The 5.4 gr Herco load ran 1003 fps, SD 11, ES 27 fps, psi 19,100

The 5.7 gr Herco load ran 1070 fps, SD 15, ES 40 fps, psi 23,000

The 6.0 gr Herco load ran 1092 fps, SD 14, ES 42 fps, psi 23,200 ...... all the traces showed very high secondary spikes occurring during each shot. This is the first time I have ever seen a secondary spike in the trace exceed the psi of the primary chamber psi...... perhaps this is why we no longer see Herco data for the 38 SPL?

Attachment 269024

The 6.3 gr Herco load ran 1135 fps, SD 12, ES 30 fps, psi 25,200

A subsequent test of the same Herco in the 44 SPL under the RCBS 44-250-KT did not show the sharp spikes but just little secondary bumps in psi which, as previously stated, quite common. Thus, while the internals measured quite uniformly the very sharp and high pressure spikes with Herco in the 38 SPL are of a concern. Caution should be exercised if using Herco in the 38 SPL due to the high end +P+ range of psi in the 38 SPL along with the occurrence of the very sharp and high pressure spikes..

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:28 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?404888-Herco-in-the-44-Special-P

I ran a 44 SPL test using Alliant Herco (purchased last year) under the RCBS 44-250-KT in Starline cases with WLP primers. Bullets were cast of COWW + 2% tin, sized .430 and lubed with 2500+. Test firearm was a Contender with 8.8" barrel. Pressure and velocity measured with the Oehler M43 PBL. Test strings/groups were 10 shots with groups at 50 yards. Ambient temps during tests ran 80 to 82 degrees. FPS is muzzle velocity.

Attachment 269023

Test strings loaded were with 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and 9.5 gr Alliant Herco based on discussion of loads in this thread.

Results;

The 7.0 gr Herco load ran 911 fps, SD 15 fps, ES 57 fps, psi 13,700, group 2.25"

The 7.5 gr Herco load ran 972 fps, SD 15 fps, ES 49 fps, psi 15,900, group 2.1"

The 8.0 gr Herco load ran 1019 fps, SD 11 fps, ES 28 fps, psi 17,700, group 1.9"

The 8.5 gr Herco load ran 1072 fps, SD 14 fps, ES 48 fps, psi 20,400, group 2.1"

The 9.0 gr Herco load ran 1116 fps, SD 14 fps, ES 31 fps, psi 23,100, group 1.25" .... this was only a 7 shot string/group as on the 7th shot the hammer spring in the Contender broke. That brought testing to a halt for the day.

I replaced the hammer spring and have loaded another test string of 9.0 gr Herco under the 44-250-KT. A test string of 9.0 gr Herco under the Lyman 429421 is also loaded along with "Skeeter's load" of 7.5 gr Unique with both bullets. Hopefully can complete the test next week (Monday or Tuesday) of the Herco 9/0 and 9.5 gr loads along with the two "Skeeter" loads.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:44 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?72897-Testing-6-5-Swede-HV-loading-with-shotgun-filler

Testing 6.5 Swede HV loading with shotgun filler
Hello all

I am starting this thread to address the tests I am conducting with the 6.5x55 Swede cartridge with cast bullets shot at high velocity (2200 – 2300+ fps) using medium and slow burning powders with a shotgun buffer filler. It has been posted that excellent accuracy can be obtained with this cartridge and it’s fast twist barrel in that high Velocity (HV) range. It is also stated by those who developed this technique that it is dangerous as high pressures can result if the loader doesn’t know what he is doing. These tests I have and am going to be conducting are because I am interested in such HV loads in the 6.5 Swede and I have the mechanism (an Oehler M43 PBL) to measure velocity, muzzle velocity, downrange velocity (100 yards), Ballistic Coefficients, MAPs (Maximum Average Pressure), and can record the time/pressure trace. The objective is two fold; first to develop accurate (minimal 1 ½ moa in capable rifles) HV (22-2300+ fps) cast bullets loads in issue milsurp 6.5x55 Swede barrels using the described technique with shotgun buffer as a filler. Second is to determine if dangerous pressures do happen and where they happen.

I will conduct numerous tests over the next several months. I have already conducted the first test. As the tests are done other sub-tests will be done along the way to give data or reach a conclusion on a point. Observations on what is working and what is not working will be obvious through the group size, the velocity and the pressure data. On the two main objectives (can the claimed accuracy really be had by other cast bullet shooters and is this technique dangerous) I will not make any conclusion until I have completed all of the tests. I would ask that all of you do not reach any conclusions before then also.

Obviously this thread is a different track from starmetal’s “Milk Jug” thread. As such I am asking everyone to ask pertinent questions or make pertinent remarks. However lets just let the results of the tests and the data speak for themselves. Derogatory remarks and/or criticism without an explicit constructive answer to the criticism are not wanted. We want to progress here in as straight forward manner as we can. That means we must all cooperate toward this goal. If you can not do that then please don’t post. You are always open to start your own thread and criticize and complain to your hearts content there. Here we are trying to accomplish something in a meaningful way so please assist if you can.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

Larry Gibson

This is the first test completed so far.

6.5 Swede HV; Test 1

I completed the first test of the 6.5 Swede with HV (High Velocity) cast bullet loads using a shotgun buffer as filler. The results while not satisfying were none the less interesting and informative. They will lead to additional testing to be conducted soon. The test rifle is a Mexican SR M98 action that I put a new, in the white milsurp M38 Swede barrel on. The headspace is very tight with factory 6.5x55 ammunition giving a “crush” fit when the bolt is closed. The action is bedded in a Fajen sporter stock with the first couple inches of the barrel bedded. The trigger is smoothed and is a crisp 2 ½ lb pull. The scope is a Tasco World Class 3x9x50 and is set on 9X for the testing. The rifle shoots factory ammo into less than 2 moa for 10 shot strings. With reloads using Sierra or Hornady bullets moa 10 shot groups are common.

The velocity and pressure tests were done with an Oehler M43 PBL. The start screen was 15” from the muzzle. Testing was done at the Tacoma Rifle and revolver Club’s main range. There are very solid cement benches there and I set the M43 up in the same location each time I test there. The set up is also checked by shooting a test string with a test rifle and a known consistent lot of ammunition (referred to a “reference ammunition”). I use a .308W bolt action I have just for this purpose and a specific lot of M118SB that I have obtained. The pre-test check with the test rifle and reference ammunition was well within expected variation so I began the 6.5 tests.

Test conditions; it was an overcast day with no wind to speak of. It was 40 degrees F during the test. Test target was at 100 yards. A front and rear rest were used.

Test loads; I followed 45 2.1’s instructions with the bullets, and equipment I have. I will list here his instructions in italics and under each instruction mention what I did in bold. Also I wish 45 2.1 and starmetal to understand that I am not criticizing anything here. I am only reporting what I’ve done in relation to their instructions, previous statements and claims. My assumption is to take everything at face value and work diligently at getting the same level of accuracy at 2200 fps or so in the 6.5 Swede with 7.9” twist. My testing is far from over so again; I am not criticizing, only reporting and learning.

•The correct (easiest to use, not the only one suitable to use) filler is the Ballistic Products: BP Original design buffer. Be sure it has not been changed from its original properties, i.e. it will NOT flow thru a funnel without help and clumps together when piled up.

I did not have the correct filler as what I got was based on what I had gleaned/guessed at from previous posts/threads and from some PM information. I have BPI’s #47 buffer. It is a plastic buffer and does not flow through a funnel exactly as 45 2.1 describes. In a private conversation with starmetal he had not tried #47 either and was anxious to see if it performed. I conducted this initial test with the #47. I have some of the “original” on order to test when it arrives. If the #47 is not successful at least I will have some load data with several powders to narrow down the test parameters with the original buffer when I get it.

•This filler is not a Do-All in that it has a specific purpose in this and other smaller capacity cartridges. Its purposes are to reduce the cartridge capacity in which it does these things: helps the slow burning powder to achieve it initial ignition pressure by bridging in the case neck/shoulder area thereby increasing initial pressure so that the powder burns very uniformly and evenly; keeps any powder gas off the boolit base along with stopping any gas cutting; compacts into a plastic solid mass which acts as a shock absorber and provides even pressure around the boolit base. After the boolit starts moving the filler plug moves into the neck out of the case thereby increasing case capacity again lowering the pressure buildup. This keeps the pressure lower than any other method I’ve found.

I did not find any evidence that #47 was “compact(ing) into a plastic solid mass”. With all loads tested there was a large “puff” of the filler between the muzzle and the start screen with each shot. Even at the maximum load I stopped at which had 41,600 psi there was no indication the filler was compacting into a solid mass. It may prove different with other powders or with “original” filler, we shall see in future tests. The #47 filler also allows the two powders tested to burn uniformly and evenly.

•To load the Swede correctly, you need to do the previously talked about things such as: reforming military thick necked 30-06 brass along with turning the case neck to 0.001” loaded case chamber clearance, a throat sized cast boolit that fits your rifle, a centered fired formed case, etc. These have been covered in detail before and can be found in the archives.

The brass is well fire formed and necks are trued. Primers used were Remington 9 1/2s. The bullet is a 266455 that drops at .267-.268 when cast of WW/lead 50/50 alloy. The test barrel is .266 in the grooves. The throat is also .266 and an unsized .267 bullet gets shoved back into the case by the chamber throat. I seat the GCs first, then push them nose first into the .266 H die in the 450. The bullets are then lubed in the same .266 H die with LBT Soft Blue lube. The bullet fully dressed weighs right at 130 gr and looks exactly like the one starmetal posted that he got from 45 2.1.

•To actually load the cartridge involves simple hand loading methods. You need dies which will accept the somewhat (0.268”+) boolit. Several die sets will not until altered. You also need a neck expander about 0.001" below your boolit diameter to expand and flare the neck with. It also helps with some powders to taper crimp the case neck lightly.

The case necks are sized in a Redding bushing die giving .001 - .002” tension on the bullets. The bullets are seated so the front driving band is just off the lande. This puts the Top of the GC right at the base of the neck. I use a 7x57 die to seat the over sized bullets. A check on concentricity shows minimal runout (close to the best I get with cast bullets which is .001 - .004”. I did not crimp any of the loads and will include that in the next test.

•Powder selection is fairly simple; you pick a slow for the cartridge powder. That is one which is probably one speed (or more) slower than what is shown in the jacketed data shown for the boolit weight you have. IMR 4350 and AA3100 both work here.

I used 4895 for 3 of the test loads as starmetal had successfully used that in his 6.5MS. The test loads with 4895 were 26, 28 and 30 gr. I then loaded 9 five shot test strings with AA4350 starting at 31 gr. I chose 31 gr because that is what starmetal said was the load on the first 6.5 Swede groups he posted. My test loads went; 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 and 48 gr.

How much powder do you use? Fill the fire formed sized case up to within a dimes thickness of where the body meets the shoulder of the case. Measure that amount and check it against the loading data you have looked at. It should be on the low side of published data, at least for the powders shown. This is where you adjust the load varying the powder charge from that point up to the base of the shoulder.

•How much filler do you use? Conventional wisdom says to fill it to the top of the case neck. If you do this you will NOT get a decent group. This filler DOES NOT like being compressed much. What you do is fill the case to the point where it will compress the thickness of a gas check (that will be just slightly into the base of the neck). You will want to tap the case head a couple of times at this point to make sure it is filled to that point. Seat the boolit and taper crimp slightly.

I filled a case with 4350 as per the instructions and weighed that amount. I then adjusted a Lee powder thrower to throw that weight charge which was 52 gr. Noting the CC amount per the Lee scale I divided that into the powder weight which gave me a constant for how much volume 1 gr of powder was taking in the CC scale of the Lee powder measure. Then I adjusted the Lee to thrown the starting load. Subtracting the reading on the Lee scale for that starting load from the full case reading gave me the volume of filler needed to fill the case with filler. As I adjusted the powder charge up I multiplied the constant times the powder weight and subtracted that from the first filler volume. I found that due to settling of the filler I had to add a tudge to the filler volume. I set up 2 powder throwers; the first was a Lyman 55 to throw the powder and the second was the Lee to throw the filler. It sounds a lot more complicated than it was and I have to admit using 45 2.1 and starmetals names in vain for getting me into such a mess However I soon got the hang of making the adjustments and it went pretty smoothly. I did have to lightly rap the drum screw of the Lee thrower to get the filler to settle evenly into the extension. On the down stroke I also had rap the drum screw about 5-6 times to get the filler to drop into the case.

•This is not dangerous if you have some wits about you, BUT I will not assume any responsibility for what you do either. This cartridge is graduate/PHD level on how to make it work and get it to shoot at jacketed accuracy and velocity, which it will do easily if you know what you’re doing.
•You will have to make adjustments in those powder/filler levels to achieve this. There is a learning curve here. The best way is to post your group pictures along with what you did. The group size and shape will tell what needs to be done.
It definitely took some thinking on getting the right way to make powder and filler amounts come out to 100% density. Once I figured out how to do it with the Lee thrower it was relatively easy.
•You got any questions, then ask because Joe went thru this for awhile before he caught on to how it is properly done.

What taper crimp die are you using 45 2.1?

So with the afore mentioned loads and equipment I was off to the range to test. As stated I had everything set up and did a reference check to ensure all was set and that the M43 was giving proper readings. Now to the “Good, the Bad and the Ugly”;-0

I ran the 4895 test first.

26 gr 4895; produced the best accuracy of any load including the AA4350 loads. Group size was right at 2.2”. Velocity was 2085 fps, SD was 22 and the ES was 56. The MAP was 37,200 psi, the SD 1,300 and the ES 3,300. Bolt lift and extraction were easy.

28 gr 4895; velocity was 2168 fps, SD was 13 and the ES was 29. The MAP was 41,600 psi, the SD was 1,100 and the ES was 2,800. No sign of hard bolt lift.

30 gr 4895; velocity was 2236 fps, SD was 17 and the ES was 40. The MAP was 45,300 psi, SD was 700 and the ES was 1,200. Two of the shots gave hard bolt lift. Both of those shots gave the same puff of filler at the muzzle as the other shots. There was no sign of pressure with any of those shots. Primers were very nicely rounded.

I then tested the AA4350 loads;

31 gr AA4350; velocity was 1965 fps, SD was 22 and the ES was 45. The MAPwas30,500 psi, SD was 800 and the ES was 1,600. No sign of hard bolt lift.

33 gr AA4350; velocity was 2047 fps, SD was 7 and the ES was 14. The MAP was 31,900 psi, SD was 1,100 and the ES was 20. No hard bolt lift.

36 gr AA4350; velocity was 2167 fps, SD was 6 and the ES 17. The MAP was 36,100 psi, the SD 700 and the ES 1,600. No hard bolt lift.

38 gr AA4350; velocity was 2252 fps, SD was 24 and ES was 62. The MAP was 39,200 psi, SD 800 and the ES 1,600. There was a bit of hard bolt lift on all of the shots. There were no signs of pressure.

40 gr AA4350; velocity was 2340 fps, SD was 20 and the ES 52. The MAP was 41,600 psi, SD 10,00 and the ES 2,300. There was absolutely no bolt lift problem with any of the shots(?). There were no pressure signs.

I am at a loss to explain the bolt lift problems at some points yet at a higher pressure there are no bolt lift problems. There was no indication of excessive pressure at any times. The time pressure traces, the time under the pressure curve and the duration of the pressure curve showed no indication of any pressure spikes. The puff of filler between the muzzle and start screen was consistent and always present. I’m sure there is a reason but I can’t think of it yet.

There you have the Good and the Bad. The ugly is that accuracy for all the loads except the first 4895 load loads ran 4-6” until the last group with 40 gr of AA 4350 where only 3 shots stayed on the rather large target. I did not test the last 3 test strings because of the total loss of anything remotely that could be described as accuracy from a rifle barrel. Perhaps a shotgun barrel pattern would fit the description but not accuracy from a rifle.

I shall revisit the 4895 loads with a harder bullet and different lube. I will also try 3100, H4831SC and RL22. With those slower powders I will start at 31 gr and work up to 40 gr. That is the plan and the test continues.

There was some discusion as to the suitability of the Mex SR with the milsurp 6.5 Swede M38 barrel as being a "true test" of the 6.5 Swede. Well it is a factory milsurp 6.5 Swede replacement barrel. It has the original chamber (finished) and is at minimum headspace. How it being on a different action affects the outcome of velocity, pressure and accuracy is confusing to me. However, to placate those who think otherwise I also have a M38 and will conduct tests with it. To this effect one of the next tests will be a comparative test between the two rifles (the Mex Swede and the M38) to determine if there is a real difference. If there is I will use the M38 for the remainder of the tests. However, if it proves out there is no substantial differnce between the rifles then does it matter if I use the Mex Swede?

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:52 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?398078-Thoughts-on-loading-32-S-amp-W

32 S&W

I recently inquired at several LGSs regarding any 32 S&W or 32 Short colt cartridges they may have laying around. I ended up with several sample of 32 S&W of various makes of unknown vintage. The purpose for the acquisitions was to pressure test them. I pressure tested them a couple days ago and had interesting results. I also ended up with full box of Western 32 Short Colt which I’ve not tested yet.

The test firearm was a Contender With a 10” barrel chambered in 32 H&R Magnum and a strain gauge affixed over the chamber at the prescribed SAAMI location for pressure measurement. The gauge was connected to the Oehler m43 and its attendant software in a laptop. I was able to measure the pressure and muzzle velocity of the assorted 32 S&W cartridges.

As a reference:
32 H&R Magnum
Federal 32 H&R 85 gr LSWC factory ammunition ran 1217 fps (987 fps out of 6 ½” Ruger SS) at 18,200 psi.
A Lee TL 90 gr SWC over 3.2 gr Bullseye ran 1128 fps at 16,500 psi

32 S&WL;
Federal factory WCs; 12,000 psi
Lee TL 90 gr SWC over 2.8 gr Bullseye ran 1060 fps at 16,800 psi (880 fps out of my M30 S&W with 3” barrel)
Lee TL 90 gr SWC over 3.2 gr Bullseye ran 1165 fps at 19,300 psi.
98 gr cast SWC over 2.5 gr Bullseye ran 944 fps at 15,000 psi.
98 gr cast SWC over 4 gr Unique ran 1101 at 19,000 psi

The results of the 32 S&W factory ammunition;

Winchester Western 86 gr Lubaloy LRN; 786 fps at 18,900 psi
Winchester W-W; 727 fps at 15,300 psi
Winchester [WRA]; 729 fps at 16,300 psi
Remington [R-P]; 676 fps at 14,200 psi
Federal [F C] 86 gr FMJRN; 833 fps at 17,900 fps
Winchester [WRA] 86 gr FMJRN; 780 fps at 14,000 psi

The average pressures for the 32 S&W ran from a low of 14,000 psi to 18,900 psi. The 32 S&W is presumed to be a lower pressure cartridge than the 32 S&WL because it is the shorter cartridge. That presumption is probably based off similar cartridges such as the 38 SPL/357 Mag, the 44 SPL/44 Mag, etc. Thus that presumptions has always led to the belief that using the 32 S&W in the old H&R and Iver Johnson top break 32 S&WL chambered revolvers was “safer” because of the less psi of the 32 S&W cartridge…….we see from the actual psi of numerous 32 S&W factory loads that is not the case……..

I'm not saying 32 S&W ammunition is unsafe in 32 S&WL chamber top break revolvers just saying there's not a lot of difference, in pressure, between the two cartridges as is thought.

I'd suggest, with the 311252 cast bullet, a small dipper be made out of a 22 short or LR case and filed down to hold 1.0 gr Bullseye and use that. The pressure will be comparable or less than the original and latest production 32 S&W smokeless loads. A recent test of some latest R-P 32 S&W (Green Box) showed it had 1.0 gr of smokeless (very similar in appearance to 700X...not say it was just saying it was similar) powder under the 88 gr lead bullet. That gave a psi of 13,300. My suggested load should be similar.

Actually, according to my older Lyman manuals, the 311252 was designed for the 32 Colt and 32 Savage auto pistols. The 87 gr 311259 was designed for use with the 32 S&W. In such a small capacity case seating depth is critical to pressure generated. The 311252 seated with both lube grooves covered will be seated much deep than the factory 88 gr or the 311259 bullet would be. Thus pressures with the same load may very well be higher with the lighter weight bullet seated deeper. With the 311252 bullet I'd suggest seating so the case mouth is just on top of the middle drive band.....maybe just to the front edge. No crimp is needed, just straighten out the case mouth flair.

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:53 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?398078-Thoughts-on-loading-32-S-amp-W

32 S&WL; 311008 115 gr SWC; Bullseye & Unique PSI Test
A fellow member here, JoeJames, who is an aficionado of the 32 S&WL offered up a sufficient quantity of 311008 bullets for a comprehensive test of Alliant’s Bullseye and Unique powders. The nominal weight is 115 gr but Joes’, cast of COWW + 2% tin, weighed in at 116 gr fully dressed…..close enough for government work…… His bullets were sized at .312 and lubed with 50/50 lube.

I used my 10” barreled TC Contender barrel for the pressure and velocity testing. I lose about 200 fps when the same loads are fired in my 3” M30 S&WL and a bit over 100 fps when they are fired in my 6 ½” Ruger SS 32 H&R. The Oehler M43 PBL was set up at the local range. Bench position used with sandbag rests. The Contender barrel has an old TC 2.5X scope on it, not the best but sufficient for testing purposes.

Attachment 242387

Attachment 242388

The temperature during the test ran from 77 to 82 degrees. Humidity was26% and the barometric pressure was 29.82. Target is at 50 yards.

There is little current data available using 115 gr cast bullets in the 32 S&WL. The last really relevant data was found in the Lyman #3 CBH. As you can see from the pressure measurement data of this test it appears the Lyman data for their listed max load of Bullseye is somewhat mild while their max load listed for Unique is a bit heavy, especially for use in older weaker break top revolvers and those having “pot metal” solid frames.

Thus, JoeJames and I had settled incremental testing of both Bullseye (2.3, 2.5, 2.8 and 3.0 gr) and Unique (2.5, 2.8, 3.0, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.8 gr). Both powders are of Alliant manufacture. I used a Lee powder thrower as it throws both powders evenly. Thrown powder charges were set using an Ohaus 10-0-5 scale. Ten rounds of each increment was loaded for testing.

Cases were R-P 32 S&WLs loaded on Hornady dies. Primers were Winchester WSPs for all charges. A mid range charge was selected for each powder and was also tested using CCI 500 primers. The 311008s were seated to an OAL of 1.257 and a slight roll crimp was applied just under the front drive band.

Attachment 242389

Accuracy of all the loads except the 3.8 gr load of Unique was 2” or less at 50 yards. That’s about the best I can do these days off sand bags. The 3.8 gr Unique load with its high psi obviously obturated the bullet more in the longer 32 H&R chamber giving some leading in the throat and first couple inches of barrel. May have been some gas cutting going on also. The 50 yard group opened up to about 5”.

Here is the test data for each powder:

Bullseye Powder
Increment…..Vel……SD….......ES……psi(M43)….SD………ES
2.3 gr……….863 fps…7 fps…..20 fps….14,900……600…......1,800
2.5 gr……….908 fps…14 fps....36 fps….15,900…...1,500……4,400
2.5 gr……….902 fps…10 fps…35 fps….15,300……500……..1,800…..CCI 500 primers
2.8 gr……….977 fps…..7 fps….22 fps….17,800……400…….1,200
3.0 gr……….1028 fps...12 fps…43 fps….20,300……700…….1,900

Unique Powder
Increment…..Vel……SD….......ES……psi(M43)….SD………ES
2.5 gr………849 fps…21 fps…..69 fps….13,600…...600……..1,900
2.8 gr………886 fps…19 fps…..54 fps….14,100……500…….1,400
2.8 gr………886 fps…22 fps…..61 fps….14,500……900…….2,500….CCI 500 primers
3.0 gr………951 fps…18 fps…..55 fps….16,300……800…….2,400
3.3 gr……...1010 fps…15 fps….41 fps….18,000…...1,100…...3,400
3.5 gr……...1062 fps…15 fps….47 fps….21,400…...1,500…...4,200….max Lyman CBH #3
3.8 gr……...1134 fps…10 fps….30 fps….24,700……1,100…..3,900

Now, please, before complaining about “hot rodding” or “over loading” the 32 S&WL cartridge understand that I am not recommending anyone load any of these charges. Given the wide discrepancy in quality and strength available in 32 S&WL revolvers each must make up their own mind what they deem “safe” in the revolver they have. The choice is theirs if they have 115 +/- cast bullets and wish to load Bullseye or Unique. For my own M30 S&W (pictured) I have loaded 12 rounds each using the remaining 311008s of Bullseye (2.8 gr) and Unique (3.3 gr) to chronograph and test for accuracy and POI at 25 yards. I deem those loads as entirely safe in my M30 as previously test 32 S&W (which is proclaimed to be safe in all 32 S&WLs) because they do not exceed the highest 32 S&W psi measured [18,900 psi] in the same test gun. I will edit this post and post the chronographed velocities when I get them.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 05:59 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?417772-Are-Small-Pistol-Magnum-amp-Small-Rifle-Primers-Safe-in-9mm

Comparison of various SP and SR primers in the 357 Magnum

Given the panic buying, hoarding and shortage of firearms, ammunition and reloading equipment and components several recent threads have asked if it is “safe” to use, in lieu of standard SP primers, magnum strength SP primers or even SR primers. This question pops up every now and then but the recent numerous queries on this topic seem to be driven by the dire shortage of primers. Some reloaders have no standard SP primers with no prospect of obtaining any in the foreseeable future at anything resembling a reasonable price. They do, on the other hand have SP magnum or SR primers both of which fit the primer pockets of handgun cartridges using a SP primer.

A recent video by a small ammunition manufacturer indicated switching from a standard SP primer to a SP magnum primer of the same manufacture posed no problem in the 9mm P cartridge with the given load tested. They tested, on the video, two 3 shot tests of a load to get three shot tests of pressure and of velocity. While there appeared to a mild increase in psi and velocity when the SP magnum primer was used with the same load the difference did not seem to be too much. The factory rep so stated it was safe to substitute primers. I had reservations about that conclusion as the test sample was too small and the load (powder and charge) was not given. Now he could have done that test numerous times to get a valid test sampling but that was not apparent from the video.

While I had not specifically tested a direct comparison between different types of primers I had, from previous chronographing and pressure measurements, formed an opinion that, while some switching of different makes and types of primers seemingly made little difference, switching primers can sometimes give sufficient differences, particularly in pressure. I, of course, referring to small handgun cartridges using the faster burning powders. The results of this test should in no way be construed as a blanket statement or rule of thumb. There are just too many variables concerning the volume of cartridge cases and, probably most importantly, the ignition and burning characteristics of slower burning powders. The results of this test apply to the use of the easily ignitable fast burning powders used in small handgun cartridges.

Thus to find an answer to the question [Can SP magnum or SR primers be substituted for SP primers in the smaller cartridge cases with a given load?] I rummaged through my supply of SP and SR primers and came up with five different SP primer make/types to test;

CCI 500
Federal 100
Winchester WSP
CCI 550
Federal 200 Magnum

I also came up with five SR primer make/types to test;

Remington 7 ½
CCI 400
Winchester WSR
Federal 205 Magnum
CCI 450

While there are other such primers I feel a sample of 10 different primers should give us an idea of the potential pressure increases and some aspect of whether or not substituting primers might be “safe”.

Thus with that selection of primers I prepped 100 Winchester 357 magnum cases [ten shot test with each primer] . I selected a load to use with all the primers that was a mid-range 357 magnum load [based on previous chronographing] which should give a bit of “fudge” room if the psi’s did get too high with any primer. The load I selected to use was 6 gr of Alliant Unique under a 358156 cast of COWWs + 2% tin, sized .358, Hornady GCs crimped on and lubed with BAC. The bullets were seated, and roll crimped in the front crimp groove giving the loaded OAL at 1.597”.

The SAAMI MAP for both the 357 magnum and the 9mm P are 35,000 psi.

The test firearm was my Contender 7.94” barrel with the strain gauge located over the chamber as per SAAMI specification. The strain gauge was connected to the Oehler m43 PBL. Test conditions were a reasonable 60 degrees with 30% humidity and little to no wind. The velocity listed is muzzle velocity as the M43 corrects the screened velocity to the muzzle. The Oehler Sky-screen start screen was 10’ from the muzzle.

All results are based on the 10 shot test string for each primer. All the time/pressure curves (traces) appeared normal for the test firearm. The results are listed by primer. Since the thrust of answering the question has to do with pressure that is the focus of this test. I shall make comments after the data for each primer is listed and also in conclusion.

CCI 500 SPP primer

Average velocity; 1178 fps, SD 11 fps, ES 38 fps. PSI average; 25,700
SD 2,100, ES 5,700, high psi was 29,200 and the low psi was 23,500.

This is a particularly good load. The internals are excellent as shown by the low SD/ES of both velocity and psi.

Federal 100 SP primer

Average velocity; 1189 fps, SD 10 fps, ES 36 fps. PSI average; 27,900, SD 1,700, ES 5,500, high psi was 30,300 and the low psi was 24,800.

Another excellent load but we see a slight increase in velocity and psi. The 11 fps increase in velocity equated to an increase of 2,200 psi.

Winchester WSP primer

Average velocity was 1175 fps, SD 18 fps, ES 60 fps. PSI average; 26,300, SD 3,400, ES 9,900,
high psi was 31,700 and the low psi was 21,800.

This primer is supposed to be of stronger brisance as it is intended to ignite ball powders. We see a velocity and psi comparable to the previous two primers, but we also see a much larger SD and ES of both velocity and psi. Two of the tested rounds gave a psi above 30,000.

CCI 550 SP Magnum primer

Average velocity was 1179 fps, SD 17 fps, ES 60 FPS. PSI average: 27,500, SD 3,900, ES 13,500, high psi was 35,300 and the low psi was 21,800.

This SP magnum primer showed no increase in velocity or in psi averages. However, obviously the internal psi created with what was supposed to be a “mild” 357 magnum load of Unique demonstrates something is amiss here given the somewhat erratic internal ballistics. Two the tested psi’s were above 30,000 with one exceeding the SAAMI MAP for the 357 magnum.

Federal 200 Magnum SP primer

Average velocity was: 1176 fps, SD 14 fps, ES 43 fps. PSI average: 27,100, SD 2,700, ES 8,800, high psi was 32,000 and the low psi was 23,200.

Again, this magnum SP primer gave no increase in average velocity or psi. Yet the wide SD/ES of the psi measurements indicate somewhat erratic performance. The 32,000 psi shot gives cause for concern.

Remington 7 ½ SR primer

Average velocity was; 1184 fps, SD 20 FPS, ES 78 FPS. PSI average: 28,100, SD 2,800, ES 9,100, high psi was 32,000 and the low psi was 22,900.

Except for the much larger SD/ES of the psi this SR primer gave similar performance to the Federal 100 primer. We must note that two of the tested shots exceeded 30, psi with this primer but not with the Federal SP primer. A noticeable difference.

CCI 400 SR primer

Average velocity was: 1188 fps, SD 15 fps, ES 52 fps. PSI average was 29,200, SD 3,700, ES 12,200, high psi was 35,100 and the low psi was 22,900.

Quite erratic yet the chronographed velocity does not indicate that. No appreciable gain in average velocity yet a 2-3,000 psi gain is apparent in the average psi. Five of the tested ten shots gave psi above 30,000 with one exceeding the SAAMI MAP.

Winchester WSR primers

Average velocity was: 1173 fps, SD 17 fps, ES 50 fps. PSI average was: 27,600, SD 3,800, ES 9,100, high psi was 32,600 and the low psi was 23,500 psi.

Again, erratic internal psi yet not apparent based on the “normal “chronograph measurements. No appreciable increase in velocity or psi as shown by the “average” of each yet 4 of the tested shots exceeded 30,000 psi.

Federal 205 SR Magnum primer

Average velocity was: 1185 fps, SD 16 fps, ES 63 fps. PSI average was: 29,700, SD 2,400, ES 8,200, high psi was 34,000 and the low psi was 25,800.

Again, erratic psi performance not belied by the chronographed velocity measurement. Three of the tested shots exceed 30,000 psi with one approaching the SAAMI MAP.

CCI 450 SR primer

Average velocity was: 1171 fps, SD 15 fps, ES 47 fps. PSI average was: 28,000, SD 2,400, ES 6,900, high psi was 31,000 and the low psi was 24,100.

No gain in velocity, small gain in psi with three of the tested shots above 30,000 psi. Appears to be the mildest of the “magnum” strength SR primers tested.

So there’s the data which brings us back to the question: is substituting a SP magnum primer or a SR primer for a standard SP primer “safe” in a small handgun cartridge? The answer is somewhat of a conundrum. If the load with the standard SP primer is a low or mid-level load then the substitution may be deemed “safe” depending on the actual case capacity of the load in question. But then, how do you know?

Unless you can measure the pressure, you won’t know. Dropping back and working back up to the same chronographed velocity is often recommended. I have even recommended that myself in the past. But is that safe? Looking at the velocities of all ten tested primers with the same load we find the average velocities ran from 1171 fps to 1188 fps, a spread of only 17 fps. Interestingly the lowest and highest velocities of any of the rounds shot were with SR primers. The average velocity variation falls easily within the average to average variation we can get chronographing the same load several times.

Thus chronographing really isn’t going to give an indication of the difference in psi. The three standard SP primers averaged 25,700 psi to 27,900 psi with the highest psi of any individual shot being 31,700 psi. With the SP magnum primers and the SR primers the psi was always higher with several of the tested shots exceeding the SAAMI MAP of 35,000 psi. If we ponder what the highest tested shot psi’s would be (not the average of the test) if we had used a max load developed with standard primers in the 34-35,000 psi and then had substituted the standard primer with a SP magnum or SR primer? The highest shot psi’s would probably have exceeded 40,000 psi. That would not be what I consider to be “safe”. Might get away with in in some larger framed revolvers but still not something to be recommended. In a semi auto you might get away with it but it would beat the gun up at best and if a case head burst at the web.......possibly disasterous.

In the 9mm P with its much smaller case capacity? I would not use any other primer than a standard SP primer with other than a "starting load".

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 06:12 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?140081-38-SPL-158-Grain-LSWCHP-quot-FBI-Load-quot-Hardness

The "FBI 38 SPL load" is a +P load. This a 150 gr LSWC. I have pulled several Winchester bullets and they are dead soft at 5.5 -6 BHN. I use a Lyman 358477 mould and cast them of dead soft lead or at most a 40-1 lead - tin alloy. % gr of Unique give a standard 850 fps load (4" barrel) and 5.5 gr Unique boosts it to +P at 925 fps (4" barrel). Those are measured psi's with an Oehler M43 and velocities out of a 4" M15 S&W. The +P load is the same psi and velocity as the Winchester factory +P load.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

12-31-2022, 06:27 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?225398-My-test-of-the-6-5-Cruise-Missile

TEST OF THE 6.5 “CRUISE MISSILE”

Back a couple years ago when I did the 6.5 Swede HV test the individual who sent the GB 6.5 Kurtz bullet mould also sent a Lee mould for the 6.5 Cruise Missile” 175 gr cast bullet he acquired from Midway. This is one of them that casts bullets over size in driving band diameter and in nose diameter. The owner requested I test them when I got around to it. After moving from Washington State to Arizona and having most everything in storage for almost a year I finally got around to conducting a test. These are my trials and tribulations with this bullet.

Before moving I at first cast the bullets out of COWWs + 2% tin and WQ’d them. I found the driving bands to be .272 +/- and the very long nose to be .269 +/-. When seated to any reasonable oal in the Swede case and chambered the hard bullets would be pushed way down in the case a only the 1st part of that long nose would go up into the bottom of the chamber throat. Others reported this same thing. I attempted to sized the noses down with bushings in a modified H&I die in the 450 Lubrasizer. The bullets were too hard and they bent or the noses were swaged off center. A softer more malleable alloy was needed. The cast CMs went back into the pot. The alloy was changed to linotype with 20% lead added. This results in a usable CM cast AC’d bullet that at least could be sized down w/o destroying the bullet.

The 80/20 linotype bullets were first pushed through a .268 H sizer (I die removed) to size the driving bands and seat/crimp the Hornady GC on. The I die was replaced and they were then lubed in the same .268 H&I die with Carnauba Red lube. A .266 H&I die was put in the 450 Lubrasizer and bullets pushed in nose first up to the driving band to size the noses to .266. A .264 H&I die was also used the same way to partially size the nose half way back so when seated the ogive of the nose would be up into the throat at the leade. While I like a good challenge and enjoy casting bullets the gyrations I was having to go through to get these CMs to “fit” the 6.5 Swede throat were quickly getting out of the “fun” category to say the least.

Attachment 92324

We see in the above photo the 175 gr CM is a sleek “missile” indeed with the promise of that 1st kiss from a young maiden……and we all know how well that turned out……..actually though, we see that when the oversize CM is sized as such the driving bands at .268 “fit” the bottom of the tapered 6.5 Swede throat (all the milsurp M96s and M38s that I have measured have tapered throats as such) and the .266 to .264 of the nose allowed the bullet to slip up into the throat to just kiss the leade. As we also see the GC remains right at the base of the case neck which is good also. The actual cartridge OAL was 3.019”.

At the range I set up the Oehler 35P to record the velocities and put the target at 100 yards. The test rifle was my M38 that is sporterized as a “scout”. The scout scope is the Leupold 2X. This rifle is capable of sub moa with jacketed and MOA with other cast bullet loads. This was to be the test rifle throughout. The test rifle barrel slugs out at .266 groove diameter with a pin measured .254 bore. The throat tapers from .268 at the case mouth to .266 at the leade.

Attachment 92331

The initial starting load of 30 gr was a surprise. Velocity was 1814 fps! Four of the shots went into 2.5” which is promising. However there was one flyer which opened the group to 4.9”. I am very good at calling my shots and that was a flyer. It was telling me something. The RPM was 167,446, already a bit over the RPM threshold or had I already pushed it up?

Attachment 92330

The 32 gr RL22 put all 5 shots into 2.6” at 1924 fps and 177,600 RPM! Hmmmmm, just maybe I was on to something here!

Attachment 92332

Then came the 34 gr RL22 load……only 4 of the 5 shots hit the 21x24” target paper! One of the bullet holes was showed signs of severe key holing or yaw. The one shot that went off target went high to the right (was observed hitting the back stop berm). Velocity was 2019 fps at 186,369 RPM. Internal ballistics based on the ES and SDs were showing very good.

Tried the 36 gr RL22 load and only 2 shots hit the 21x24” paper target and they also key holed or were yawing severely. Velocity was 2220 fps at 204,923 RPM.

Moved the targets into 50 yards for the remainder of the 5 shot test strings hoping to hit paper.

The 40 gr RL22 load ran 2280 fps at 210,461 RPM with all 5 shots hitting the 21x24” target. All were key holing and the group size was 20”.

At 42 gr RL22 only 2 of the 5 shots hit the 50 yard 21x24” target. Both were Key holed. Velocity was 2406 fps at 222,092 RPM.

The last test also only produced 2 hits on the 21x24” target at 50 yards. They were key holed. Velocity was 2500 fps at 230,769 RPM.

A friend was spotting for me and said all misses went way off target in all directions, no consistency to where at all. He was watching the impacts in the backstop/berm.

Well that sure was exciting, eh……back to the drawing board………..

Back home the rifle was cleaned with no sign of leading. The cases were cleaned, NS’d and primed for the next go ‘round. Looking at the targets and data from the initial test it appeared things were going good through the first “starting load” 30 gr load of RL22 at 1814 fps and 167,446 RPM. So I figured that would be the top end for the 10 shot tests. After several days and thoughtful sessions of further cogitation, extrapolation and another SWAG I decided on 23 gr RL22 as being the best place for a “starting load”. Thus 10 shot test strings of 23 – 30 gr in 1 gr increments were loaded up.

Another nice and pleasant day with little wind found me at the range with the Oehler M35P set up and targets at 100 yards. The start load of 23 gr was almost a very pleasant surprise…..almost. The 10 shot group is 1.75” and there are actually 4 shots into that bottom 2 holes! Velocity was 1401 fps at 129,323 RPM. When we look close we see 4 of the 10 shots show signs of key holing. All the stability formulas say that bullet should be fully stable in a 7.8” twist at 1400 fps. Yet there are obviously stability problems. The thought crossed my mind; is this one of those cases where the bullet will “go to sleep” and give closer grouping at 200 yards? That was a question I really wanted an answer to.

Attachment 92334

Thus the bullets sat until a few weeks ago when I finally got around to conducting the test. After sitting around that long the BHN was still at 18 and the fully dressed weight was 171 gr due to the linotype alloy used. I used the same cases that were carefully prepared for the 6.5 Kurtz test. They are formed from U42 ’06 cases. They were NS’d with a Lee Collet die to give .002 - .003 neck tension on the .268 sized CMs. Primers used were WLRs.

Since I only had enough bullets for one completely thorough test I chose to go with a slow burning powder to maximize potential velocity while maintaining minimal thrust on the bullet; in other words to lengthen the time pressure curve which is an important technique if one is to push the RPM threshold. Might be good to refresh our minds with what the RPM threshold is or at least what happens;

the bullet is unbalanced or becomes unbalanced due to obturation in the bore during acceleration. The unbalanced bullet is forced to conform while in the barrel and its center of mass is revolving around it's geometric center. When the bullet is free of the barrel's constraint, it will move in the direction that its mass center had at the point of release. After exiting the muzzle, the geometric center will begin to revolve about the center of mass and it will depart at an angle to the bore (line of departure). At 54,000 RPM to 250,000 RPM, depending on velocity and twist, the centrifugal force can be tremendous. It will result in an outward or radial acceleration from the intended flight path (line of departure) and will try to get the bullet to rotate in a constantly growing helix.

As stated many times and posted in a sticky the RPM threshold for regular cast bullets in rifles most often falls in the 120,000 – 140,000 RPM range. It can be pushed by using various techniques. I shall not go into all of them here as they are available in the sticky. Suffice to say increasing RPM has a distinct negative effect on this very long thin bullet. The 7.8 twist of the milsurp barreled 6.5 Swede rifles exasperates the RPM problem. I’ve measured the twist of my own four 6.5 Swede milsurp barrels and many others. The twist measurements fall between 7.7 and 7.9” so I just use 7.8 as the twist. Thus in the 6.5 Swede we find right at 1500 fps is close to 140,000 RPM. If we are to get any usable accuracy above that we must use an appropriate powder. With the very long nose of the CM I chose to go with RL 22 powder. Since load density would be below 80% a ½ - ¾ gr Dacron filler would be used also.

Not a lot of load data available for the CM so I just initially “SWAG”d” it. To initially get a feel for the powder/bullet loads I loaded 5 shot test strings of 30 – 44 gr RL22 in 2 gr increments. This would give me a quick assessment and I would then switch to 10 shot test strings for final testing and/or tweaking.

Note in these 10 round tests I’ve also summarized the data after 5 shots and then after 10 shots. This is to give the reader an idea of how a statically poor sampling of 5 shots can give an erroneous idea as to what the actual velocity, ES and SD of a load might be as compared to the statistically valid 10 shot sample.

The 24 gr RL22 load produced a somewhat ragged 3.8” group pushing 1463 fps at 135,046 RPM. All 10 holes exhibited Key holing or yawing(?).

Attachment 92335

The 25 gr RL22 load was interesting. It produced a 10 shot 2.88” group and 9 of those were in 2.12”, looking good except all also showed key holing or yawing. Velocity was 1518 fps at 140,123 RPM.

I’d like to mention what is called “random selection” with regard to groups of less than a statistically valid number. Were we shooting 3 shot groups I can pick out 8 different 3 shot groups that are 1” or less. Had we picked any one of those 8 combinations and just test those 3 shots we would be led to believe the accuracy capability was a lot better than it really is.

Attachment 92336

The 26 gr RL22 load put 9 in 3.1” but there also was a flyer that opened the group to 5.6”.. Velocity was 1572 at 145,107 RPM. Again, all bullet holes exhibit key holing or yawing.

Attachment 92337

The 27 gr load was another surprise putting 8 shots into 2.1” with a called shot out of the group. That is where I called it so I assume it would have been in the group. There also was 1 flyer opening the group to 3.2”. Velocity was 1642 fps at 151,569 RPM. All the bullet holes exhibited key holing or yawing but not as much as before. Are we getting somewhere? Is the CM finally settling down with good stability?

Attachment 92338

The key holing or yawing was back in the 28 gr RLL22 load. Group size was 3.7”. Velocity was 1702 fps at 157,107 RPM. Obviously we are exceeding the RPM threshold as the 100 yard group size is steadily getting larger. Only testing with some of these loads at 200 yards will tell us that for sure if the groups show non–linear expansion. Or perhaps the bullets will “go to sleep” and all will be great?

Attachment 92339

Well, things got no better with 29 and 30 gr RL22. The 29 gr load went into 5.1” with 2 shots really key holing. Velocity was 1762 fps at 162,646 RPM. The 30 gr RL22 load (starting load in the initial 5 shot test strings) put the 10 shots into 5.4”. Considering “random selection” and the initial 5 shot group with the same load that put 4 shots into 2.5” and looked good I could find four 5 shot groups of 2.5” or less in that 10 shot group. Had we just been shooting 5 shot groups we could still have been led to believe the load was good. Is it though? A 200 yard test will tell the tale……..

So I went home, collated all the data, cleaned the rifle (no leading), cleaned the cases, neck sized and primed them. Then going over the data I selected the following loads to test at 200 yards; 23 gr, 25 gr, 27 gr and 32 gr (it had shot a 2.6” 5 shot group at 100 yds). The purpose for the 200 yard 10 shot group tests would be to see;

Would bullets go to sleep and stop yawing?
If so would they should smaller groups?
Was the expansion between the 100 yard groups and the 200 yard groups linear or non-linear?

I loaded up the 10 shot test strings of each listed load and a few days ago found me back at the range on another beautiful sunny and warm day with little wind. I set up the Oehler 35P and put the targets at 200 yards.

The 23 gr start load that shot the 1.75” 100 yard group was nothing to write home to momma about! The 10 shots at 200 yards went into 6.1” ……not hardly linear expansion at all. Actually twice as large as a group with linear expansion would exhibit. Also every bullet was still key holing or yawing so they did not “go to sleep” as many sometimes think. Velocity was 1374 fps at 126,850 RPM.

Attachment 92340

The 25 gr load of RL22 fared no better. The 10 yawing shots went into 9.3” with no “sleeping” there either. Definitely non-linear expansion also. The velocity was 1497 fps at 138,184 RPM.

Attachment 92341

The 27 gr load went into 8.25” at 200 yards. Considering the very hopeful 8 shot 2.1” group at 100 yards this obviously is non-linear group expansion. However, as with the 100 yard target the bullet holes here exhibit much less key holing or yawing than with any other loads. Velocity was 1622 fps at 149,723 RPM. If I had this mould (no I don’t want one thank you) and was going to hunt deer with it I might use this load but would restrict any shot to 150 yards or less, preferably 100 yards or less.

Attachment 92342

The last 200 yard test was the 32 gr RL22 load that shot the sweet 2.1” 5 shot group at 100 yards. The velocity here was 1891 fps at 174,553 RPM. Sure looked darn good at 100 yards and if we didn’t understand that a 5 shot group could lead us wrong we might have blissfully loaded a bunch up. Problem is 5 shots is not a sufficient sample. Here’s where we find that out. Also this is an excellent example of why we, if we are pushing the RPM threshold, we test a sufficient sample at 100 and at 200 yards before we make claims. The target doesn’t lie. Out of the 10 shots with this load only 2 shots hit the paper! The other 8 shots went of randomly around the 21x24” target. One shot that hit the target exhibits no key holing or yawing. The other bullet hole exhibits minimal yawing.

Attachment 92343

Obviously the 6.5 Cruise Missile cast bullets were stabilized to some degree and flying point on or they would not have hit the target at all at 200 yards, at least up through the 27 gr load. It is quite apparent the bullets had exceeded the RPM threshold somewhere around 1400 – 1500 fps as they were doing just what the definition describes; “It will result in an outward or radial acceleration from the intended flight path (line of departure) and will try to get the bullet to rotate in a constantly growing helix.”. It also apparent that his particular bullet has some serious stabilization issues that add to the problem as even at 1400 fps there was severe yawing. It seems just as the bullet was becoming stabile ( at 1600 + fps or so) it had so far exceeded the RPM threshold that while accuracy was gained with one it was then lost with the other.

My comments and results apply only to the oversize 6.5 Cruise Missile as tested with the components used. Those with the correct size CM may or may not get similar, better or worse results. Those with the same oversized CM may also get the same, worse or better results with different components. That is as it is. I am only reporting the results of my tests. Should anyone have a criticism please show us your results as I have shown mine.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

01-03-2023, 06:58 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?115657-LeveRevoltuion-Powder&highlight=LeveRevolution

Picked up a pound of the new Hodgdon LeveRevolution powder. I wanted to get a feel for this powder before attempting cast bullet loads. The suggested load on teh powder lable said 35.5 gr with the 160 gr FTX bullet. I didn't have any of those but wanted to see how that powder did with 150 gr jacketed. I've a supply of 150 gr Wonchester 30-30 PPs so I decided to work up a load with those. I started at 36 gr and worked up to 40 gr.

FLS'd PMC cases were used with WLR primers A LFCD was used to apply the crimp. AOL was 2.53". The rifle used for the test is my M94AE which has a strain gauge attached for psi measurements via the M43 Oehler PBL. The test was ran at TRRC range in University Place, 240 ft ASL with the temp at 48 degrees.

A 5 shot string of factory 160 LeveRevolution 160 gr FTX rounds were fired prior to the test to get a "reference" for velocity and the peak MAP (Maximum Average pressure). The factory ammo ran 2433 fps at 36,800 psi(M43). A previous test of that factory ammunition at 75 degrees gave 2452 fps at 37,800 psi(M43). The SAAMI MAP for the 30-30 is 42,000 psi. Given the temperature this morning I decided that a psi(M43) of 37,000 would be my MAP with the reloads.

Bottom line is 40 gr of LeveRevolution under that 150 gr PP is a 100% density load. It topped out at 37,100 psi(M43) with a velocity of 2551 fps. Accuracy for the 5 shots was 2.1" with the apurture sights. The time/pressure curve was not as steep with considerably more time under the "rise" than with the factory load. The peak psi was reached at mid barrel length (12") with the reload vs 9" with the factory load. Standard factory 150/170 gr jacketed load hit peak psi at 7 - 8" of barrel. Yes I can measure where the peak psi occurs in the barrel.

Some years back after reading Paco kelly's articles on loading for the newer M94s I developed a Paco 150 gr load using H335 in a similar M94AE with a 24" barrel. Loads were developed by watching primer back out and stopping when the primer was no longer backing out. This indicates there is then sufficient psi to be pushing the case back against the bolt. PO Ackley gives a very good description of this technique in his writings. I stopped 3 gr under what a current loading manual listed as max for that bullet at the tiem. Velocity was 2527 fps and accuracy was good. That load tested this morning revealed a MAP of 44,400 psi(M43), obviously over SAAMI's MAP for the 30-30.

Bottom line here is that the LeveRevolution Powder is allowing a very real 2550 fps with 150 gr jacketed bullet at factory level psi's below the SAAMI MAP. That's pretty darn good to me and is a worth while powder thus far tested. I'm looking forward to some 311041s over this powder in this M94AE.

Larry Gibson

Silvercreek Farmer

02-01-2023, 09:36 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?389165-38-special-seating-depth-and-pressures/page2

Pressure tested the 5.1 gr Blue Dot and 7.1 gr 2400 loads under the RCBS 35-200-FN today. Both gave very low pressure and velocity from the 7/8" Contender barrel. Accuracy for both loads (10 shot test each) was right at 2" at 50 yards......about as good as I can do with the 1.5X scope on the Contender.

Cartridge; 38 SPL (R-P)
Primer; WSP
Powder; Blue Dot (Alliant) 5.1 gr
Bullet; RCBS 35-200-FN, COWWs +2% tin AC'd, Sized .358 lubed with 2500+
Cartridge OAL; 1.64"
Velocity (muzzle); 798 fps, ES 59 fps & SD 42 FPS
PSI (M43); 11,500

Cartridge; 38 SPL (R-P)
Primer; WSP
Powder; 2400 (Alliant) 7.1 gr
Bullet; RCBS 35-200-FN, COWWs +2% tin AC'd, Sized .358 lubed with 2500+
Cartridge OAL; 1.64"
Velocity (muzzle); 785 fps, ES 73 fps & SD 33 FPS
PSI (M43); 10,700

JonB_in_Glencoe

11-25-2023, 10:51 PM

https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?462187-Favorite-general-purpose-lube&p=5650067&viewfull=1#post5650067
this isn't the original thread, I can't find it, this link is to where Larry re-posted this info on 11/25/2023 which is probably a better place to have a current discussion about it...and the Photo's didn't transfer :(

HV Lube Test (14 lubes) Results

First I want to thank all who donated lubes, GCs, reloading equipment and some money to assist in the completion of this test. Without your help and assistance the test would not have been as extensive nor as easy to complete. Thank you all.

My purpose in conducting this test was not to prove any lube better than any other lube. I also did not favor any of these lubes but conducted the test equally with each of them. My purpose in conducting this test is to find out which lube(s) work best at the higher velocities we are now using (2600 – 3000+ fps).

I managed to get to the range early the day before Christmas to conduct to lube test. It was supposed to be a bright sunny day with 0 – 4 mph winds reaching the high 50’s. However a cold front came through early so it was a colder 44 – 48 degree day that became overcast just before noon. Fortunately the wind remained calm most of the day but did pick up to about 3 mph late in the tests. The wind was out of 5 – 6 o’clock so it did not measureable effect the results.

The 14 lubes tested were (in order of test);

Javelina
White Label 2500+
2700+
Tac 1
Bullshop LOTAK
Felix FWFL (original batch)
Tac X
LBT Blue
Voodoo
White Label Carnauba Red
Lyman’s Orange Magic
Gear’s SL-68
Gear’s SL-68.1
Lyman’s Super Moly

NOE 30 XCB bullets cast of #2 alloy and WQ’s with a BHN of 22 – 23 were visually sorted (twice) for defects and weight sorted with the selected bullets at 158.7 +/- .1 gr. The selected 30 XCBs , after 30+ days of aging, had Hornady GCs seated in a Lyman 450 Lubrasizer with a .311 H&I die installed. The Lyman GC seating tool for the 450 was used so only the GC was initially seated and partially crimped. The NOE nose punch that comes with the NOE mould for the specific bullet was used. Once the GCs were seated they were lightly sprayed with a lanolin/alcohol lube and were pushed through a .311 Lee sizer. Since the bullets were .3105 as cast the Lee sizer only finished crimping the Hornady GCs on the base of the bullets. The bullets were sorted in lots of 15 each for each one of the lubes. That was 210 30 XCB Bullets for this test.

The Lyman 450 Lubrasizer already had 2500+ lube in it so the 15 bullets for 2500 lube were lubed in it. The .311 H&I die only lubed the .3105 bullets. The other lots (13) of 15 bullets each were hand lubed. I made sure all the lube grooves were full and left an excess of lube on the bullets. The excess was cleaned off with another pass through the Lee .311 sizer. Each bullet was once again inspected to make sure the lube filled each groove completely. The weight for the fully dressed bullets varied slightly (+/- .2 gr) based on the lube. I used the weight of 164.7 gr for the data input as that was for 2500+ lube which seemed to be close to “average”.

The cases used were Winchester Palma .308W cases that were match prepped and well fire formed in the test rifle. They were neck sized in a Redding Bushing die with a .335 bushing. The NOE M die case mouth expander for the Lee Case Expander die was used. The NOE expander slightly sized the inside of the case necks at .309 and flared the case mouths at .311. The cases were primed with Wincher large rifle (WLR) primers using a RCBS bench mounted priming tool.

The powder for this test was AA4350 at 47 gr. That has proven to be a consistently accurate load over the last few months with the NOE 30 XCB Bullet in the test rifle. Accuracy has consistently run from just under moa to 1.6 moa over many 10 shot groups. That load has been producing 2600 fps +/- with 2500+ lube in the 85 – 110 degree temperatures. The velocity during this test (2578 fps with 2500+ lube) dropped a bit due to the colder temperature of 44 – 48 degrees. That was expected. The 47 gr load is right at 100% load density in the Winchester fire formed cases with the seated NOE 30 XCB bullet.

The powder charges (47 gr each) were individually weighed to .05 gr +/- on a Redding balance beam scale. All of the AA4350 used was from the same canister. The 30 XCB NOE bullets were seated to the specified OAL (bullet ogive against the leade) with a Bonanza Forster Benchrest Seater. The 15 rounds for each lube were sequentially placed in MTM Cartridge boxes. Once loaded the ammunition was maintained in an upright position until each round was removed from the cartridge box.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture1.jpg
Views: 0
Size: 41.7 KB
ID: 320316

The test rifle was the same Palma rifle with 14” twist 27.6” Schultz & Larson barrel on the byf M98 action. The stock is a fiberglass replica of the old Savage 112V Varmint stock. It is not a “bench rest stock”. The scope is the same original Weaver T-16 as used before.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture2.jpg
Views: 0
Size: 40.3 KB
ID: 320317

The rest used on the solid cement bench was my old Hoppe’s that I’ve had for close to 40 years. It has a leather rabbit ear bag on it and a leather san filled rabbit ear bag is used for a rear rest.

The Oehler M43 PBL was used to record the instrumental velocity, muzzle velocity and pressure data. The pressure data is obtained via a strain gauge permanently mounted on the barrel at the SAAMI specified location.

The test of each lube was started with a cool clean barrel. The barrel was cleaned between each lube test using 2 wet patches followed by 10 strokes with a bronze brush and cleaned out with 5 more patches. Hoppe’s #9 was the solvent used on the patches and brush. The brush was cleaned off after each use with carburetor cleaner to prevent cross contamination of lube via the brush.

Cartridge loading into the rifle procedure; each cartridge was taken from the MTM cartridge box individually with the right hand and kept in a vertical position, the case head was put on the follower next to the bolt face (all the way to the rear) and the cartridge was rotated down and pushed into the magazine as the M98 feeds from the magazine. Consistency of loading each cartridge into the rifle was maintained.

With each lube tested there was a 5 shot test considered “foulers” before the actual 10 shot test was conducted. The target used was 22.5” wide and 17.5” tall. I stamped 6 diamond aiming points on each target. The “foulers” were fired using the top diamond with the record 10 shot group fired at the diamond directly under. The aiming point for each was the bottom point of the diamond.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture3.jpg
Views: 2
Size: 9.1 KB
ID: 320318

After firing each shot the bolt was opened and left fully to the rear, the case removed and a stop watch started. The empty case was put into the cartridge box. The shot impact on the target was observed through a 25X Kowa spotting scope and plotted on a separate sheet to track the location of each shot on target. After a full minute had passed at least (between shots) the next cartridge was loaded and fired. The unloading, timing and tracking were then repeated for that shot and all subsequent shots. All 210 shots (the 5 fouler shots as well as the 10 shot test shots) of this test were loaded, fired and tracked the same way.

The results; obviously this high velocity lube test was a very detailed and extensive test. There were 28 separate groups fired with 28 separate targets and data sheets. I traced all the bullets holes (except one which was not on target) on their respective Oehler data sheet print out. I do this to maintain a record of pertinent groups with their associated data and it gives us a good idea of how the actual group looked. I also numbered each shot sequentially as they were shot.

I won’t post all 28 data sheets as that would be prohibitive. I will post the top four and summarize the test.

Let’s discuss the “foulers” first. It was quite interesting to note that out of the cool clean barrel only 2 of the lubes had the 1st shot go “to group”. With several lubes it took 3 to perhaps 6 – 7 shots before the group “settled”. With one lube the first shot did not hit the target at all but appears (from the impact in the berm) to have gone several inches off to the left of the target. I plotted the 1st shot for each lube on a 11x8.5” sheet of paper. Three are not on that paper with one off about 1” at 2 o’clock, one down and away at 4 – 5 o’clock about 1.8” off and the one that was completely off target. Being familiar with 2500+ lube in this load in this rifle it was interesting the 1st shot went almost to the same poi as it always does. Whether or not the rest will be consistent that way should be tested by the user in the individual rifle/load.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture4.jpg
Views: 1
Size: 18.5 KB
ID: 320319

So, without further ado here is the standing based on group size (10 shots at 100 yards) and note this is not the order in which tested. In the case where the group size was the same the test with the higher velocity was listed first;

1. 2500+ 1.5”
2. Javelina 1.5”
3. LOTAK 1.82
4. 2700+ 1.9”
5. FWFL 1.9”
6. Voodoo 2.2”
7. Super Moly 2.3”
8. Tac 1 2.44”
9. Carnauba Red 2.45”
10. Orange magic 2.45
11. SL-68 2.58
12. Tac X 3.55
13. LBT Blue 3.75”
14. SL-68.1 3.95”

I was intrigued by the 62 fps variation in muzzle velocity between the highest and the lowest with the difference simply being the lube. Previous experience testing several strings of the same load finds a variation of velocity of 10 – 15 fps between test strings is acceptable. A difference of 20 fps is rare but I’ve never seen a difference of 62 fps! A review of the psi for each load showed a correlation between velocity and psi. The higher velocity had the higher psi, the lower velocity had the lowest psi. The trend being as the psi decreases so does the velocity. Perhaps one lube is “slicker” (viscosity?) than the other and allowing the bullet to get out of the barrel before the psi and the velocity reach a higher level? Here is the standing based on velocity and the psi for that velocity;

1. LOTAK 2597 fps 42,100 psi
2. 2700+ 2592 fps 41,600 psi
3. Tac X 2584 fps 42,200 psi
4. 2500+ 2578 fps 41,900 psi
5. Tac 1 2576 fps 41,000 psi
6. Super Moly 2574 fps 41,300 psi
7. Voodoo 2573 fps 41,200 psi
8. Felix’s FWFL 2571 fps 41,700 psi
9. Carnauba Red 2571 fps 41,000 psi
10. LBT Blue 2565 fps 40,600 psi
11. Javelina 2563 fps 41,500 psi
12. SL-68 2562 fps 40,800 psi
13. SL-68.1 2542 fps 39.500 psi
14. Orange Magic 2535 fps 39,200 psi

Note; I could find no correlation between fps, psi and accuracy. The internal ballistics for all the loads were excellent. The SD and ES with 11 of the lubes having velocity ES of less than 50 fps (8 of them less than 40 fps) and SDs of 9 – 14 fps which is excellent for 10 shot test of this nature. It should be noted the top four lubes accuracy wise had SD/ES of 10/28, 10/34, 12/36 and 10/29. In and of itself that is a pretty consistent performance.

A quick recap of each lube in order of accuracy;

2500+; this lube gave its usual great performance. It took 3 foulers and then settled into group. The SD/ES was 10/28 fps with the 10 shot test into 1.5” at 2578 fps. The 1st five shots of the test group went into .94”. The average velocity for this load in 85 – 100+ degrees has been right at 2600 fps. At 44 degrees the velocity was 22 fps less than that. This is still my “go to” lube for this rifle.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture5.jpg
Views: 1
Size: 47.9 KB
ID: 320320

Javelina; good old Javelina is still plugging away. Unfortunately it isn’t available anymore because the original Alox used isn’t made anymore. The group settled in after just 2 foulers and shots 3-5 would have been in the 1.5” 10 shot group at 2563 fps. The SD/ES was 10/34 fps with the other internal measurements being as good. I have 3 tubes of it less and will probably use it with this rifle. I also will test Lar’s White label NRA 50/50 with this rifle.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture8.jpg
Views: 0
Size: 48.2 KB
ID: 320323

Bullshop’s LOTAK; probably no surprise to Bullshop that his lube did very well. The 1st shot out of the cool clean barrel was about 9” out of the group but the next 4 foulers were within the test group demonstrating excellent seasoning of the barrel. The 2597 fps was the highest velocity recorded of the lubes. The SD/ES were also excellent at 12/36 fps and all the other internals were excellent also. The 1.82” ten shot group was very good but the 1st five shots went into 1.35”. This definitely another I will test further.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture6.jpg
Views: 0
Size: 49.7 KB
ID: 320321

2700+; this also appears to be an excellent high velocity lube. The results here along with Bjorn’s success with it pretty much confirm that. It appears from the distribution of the 5 foulers and then shots 1 & 2 of the test group that it requires 7+ shots at high velocity to properly “season” the barrel. The SD/ES was also excellent at 10/29 fps at 2592 fps. I will definitely be further testing this lube as I increase velocity.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture7.jpg
Views: 0
Size: 48.3 KB
ID: 320322

Felix FWFL (original batch); I’m sure Felix is smiling up on the “Big Range” at the showing his lube made here. It also seasoned the bore within 2 shots of the foulers. The other 3 foulers would have been in the middle of the ten shot test group of 1.9”. The velocity was 2571 fps but SD/ES of 19/63 fps might indicate problems. However, regardless of the oft heard single digit SDs it is closer to reality with 10 shot test strings of this level of a load.

Voodoo; This lube held promise as the foulers 2-5 settled into a very nice 1.2”. even within the test group of 10 shots 7 of those went into 1”. Problem was the 3 flyers opened the group to 2.2”. The internals were all very good with the SD/ES at 14/39 fps at 2573 fps except the pressure traces show evidence of secondary pressure spikes on the downside of the pressure curve

Lyman’s Super Moly; while the test group was not exceptional at 2.3” all the foulers would have gone into the test group. This lube gave the smallest SD/ES both on the fouler test (7/20 fps) and on the 10 shot test of 9/24 fps. This lube just dropped 3 of the shots consistently low out of the main group at 4 – 5 o’clock.

Tac1; this lube did not season the barrel until perhaps 10 shots had been fired (5 foulers + the 1st five shots of the test) . The velocity of 2576 fps with an SD/ES of 10/32 along with consistent internal pressure measurements belies that though. The group of 2.44” put this lube in the middle of the pack.

Carnauba Red; the 1st two fowlers hit very close together about 2” out of the group with shots 3 – 5 settling down and would have been in the main test group. The internals were good with the SD/ES at 12/37 fps at 2571 fps. The dispersion of shots within the group were consistent but the group was just 2.45”.

Lyman’s Orange Magic; This lube also had the 1st fouler shot basically go to group. The internals weren’t as consistent as 10 of the other lubes with the SD/ES at 12/45 fps at 2535 fps. The shot distribution was fairly consistent throughout the 2.45” test group. This lube gave the lowest velocity and lowest psi.

Gear’s SL-68; it only took one fouler for this lube to settle down and group also. The internals weren’t bad with the SD/ES at 15/40 fps at 2562 fps. Six of the 10 test shots went into a very tight .65” group but 4 flyers opened the group to 2.58”. There was no consistency to the direction of the flyers.

Tac X; this lube just did not perform well at this velocity level. The 2684 fps and SD/ES of 16/52 fps indicates a couple shots were out of the mainstream. Looking at the measured velocities of each shot we find that 2 of the 10 shots were indeed way out of the mainstream. That probably accounts for the somewhat erratic performance and the 3.55” group.

LBT Blue; it had been numerous years since I tested LBT Blue. In previous tests I found it satisfactory upwards of 2300 – 2400 fps but it did not perform well above that. I also have tested LBT Blue Soft with similar results. In this test it appeared hopeful as foulers 2 – 5 grouped fairly well at 1.35”. However the 10 shot test group spread to 3.75” with no consistency to shot placement within the group. The SD/ES was 11/41 which is a bit of a large spread. The velocity was 2565 fps. The other internals showed nothing to account for the group size. However, 6 of the pressure traces show a pressure spike.

Gear’s SL-68.1; this is the only lube that had the 1st shot of the foulers unaccounted for. It went off the left side of the target frame judging by the impact on the berm. There also was no data recorded for the shot and I’ve no reason why. The next 4 foulers group quite well and would have also been within the test group. Things seemed to be going along pretty good until shot #6 of the 10 shot test group which went way high. I did not call the shot high but good. Checking the data we see that shot is the lowest velocity of the 10 shots. The next shot, #7, also went out of the main group. Given this lube gave the worst SD/ES at 22/76 with the largest group at 3.95” there seems something amiss with it considering the 1st fouler shot was lost entirely and then the flyers in the test group. Eight of the 10 shots went into 1.9” and 9 of the shots, excluding #6, went into 2.15”.

Note; there was no instance of leading with any of the lubes. Some did offer more resistance when pushing the 1st wet patch through. Those softer lubes with lower viscosity seemed to “foul” less.

I really don’t have a “favorite” and will use what works the best. This test is no condemnation of any of the lubes tested. We can suppose these lubes work just fine for the lower velocity levels they were made for. That some do not work as well at higher velocity where few have gone is, again, no condemnation. Since 2500+ and 2700+ have proven themselves in this velocity range their position in the top 3 is no real surprise. Now Bullshop’s LOTAK on the other hand is one I intend to thoroughly test at 2900+ fps also when I get the 16” twist barreled M98 chambered in 30x60.

I would suggest anyone shooting at velocities above 2500 fps test the top 3 lubes in their rifle also. The problem is one that changing lubes in a lubrasizer can be a pain. Also accuracy problems associated with the lube, if the wrong one is selected, can cause the shooter to attempt to solve problems that aren’t really there in other areas. Best to hand lube with several different lubes using a known accurate load for the test as I did. It’s not that difficult. However, since we know 2500+, 2700+ and LOTAK work very well upwards of 2600 fps in numerous rifles simply picking one of those might solve some problems. We also know that 2500+ and 2700+ work at velocities above 2600 fps to 3000+ fps. If working or expecting to work with velocities at that level then selecting 2500+ or 2700+ will probably be the best choices. However, testing with my own 30”+ barrel of 16” twist chambered in 30x60 of the top 3 lubes is one of my 1st priorities with that rifle.

Larry Gibson