Several fellows over on the " � Gunwriters" forum are swapping opinions about the progress in cartridges that shooters and hunters have enjoyed in the last and current centuries.

How nice it'd be if our next great progress would be wide-spread recognition of the empty foolishness of the fetish for muzzle velocity at whatever cost in down-range results and right-next-to-the-face risks.

Just engineering loads to chamber pressures no higher than 50,000 lb/sq in. (instead of 60,000 lb/sq in. and higher) produces demonstrably wonderful benefits in accuracy, case longevity, barrel longevity, better recoil, and better long-range performance � as well as better safety.

Ken, in the battle betwixt reason and emotion the latter has the advantage of youth I fear.

Two very good posts.

It's simply the American way. It's something that is imbedded in our psyche, our culture.

To be sure, it doesn't affect all individuals, and certainly not to an equal extent. It may also be associated with relative youth, diminishing with age and maturity, just like the desire to drive fast.

Just speculation on my part.

Paul

Ken Howell,

This idea is "engineering loads to chamber pressures no higher than 50,000 lb/sq in. (instead of 60,000 lb/sq in. and higher)" is archaic. Materials are better than when you were young.

It is early to make popcorn but what the hell...

But the human intellect is still no more advanced, so young people fall for marketing huckstering the biggest, fastest, most luxurious and "in" things. Almost every new cartridge development in the last 50 years is nothing but a marketing technique to sell rifles and ammo. Not to mention that brass is still brass which is the limiting factor for pressure containment. I do recall that at one time Dick Casull was experimenting with cartridges that used steel heads to contain extreme high pressure, but that idea went nowhere.

I mean my new 204 Ruger custom rifle shoots the 24 grain Hornady NTX bullet best at 3,936 fps average, but opens the group up at 4,155 fps. Slow it down and everything is good!

The youngn's have not come full circle yet. Let them try the new stuff out on their own. They won't listen to the old guys anyway. Some of them have not figured out that they are smarter/wiser than they where a year ago. Much less 20-30 years of learning.

I'm just waiting for them to come out with a handheld rail gun.

Rail Gun!

Too much EMF!

My capacitor is bigger than your capacitor. I can hear it now.

I want a lazer. We can set the targets on the moon.

Jim

What kind of targets you talking about.

I can think of a few!

Off topic, but just having fun!!!

Au contrere, mon Frere! Our better modern materials are precisely what make my approach much more feasible than ever! The physics of both interior and exterior ballistics are exactly the same as they were when I was born (1931). Modern materials make it easier for us to utilize 'em to get superior results. If you were here, I'd show you. You simply don't know what the Aitch you're opining about.

"Archaic?"

Pore ol' Toro has gotten into the Ex-Lax again!

Yeah???????????? SOoooooooooooo?? You can't kill a critter deader than dead. You don't need an ICBM to accomplish what can be done with a piper cub........

Swedish and some of the German steels used by Lowe of the turn of the last century were just as good as anything now....overall tolerances are better, or atleast much easier to hold, but quality of materials really isnt all than much better....

Given the advancements in bullet technology, higher velocity is needed less now than ever, IMO.........

There's more to cartridges than simply killing schit.

Speed doesn't hurt.



Travis

Yeah, I'd take high BC over speed, but if we're talking about pushing the limits, speed and BC doesn't hurt.



Travis

With all the 1940s IMR-4350 that we could dribble uncompacted into the .30-06 behind a 168-grain Sierra HPBT seated 0.363 inch into the neck (about 56.8 grains), we could very safely get about 2,600 ft/sec and 2,971 ft-lb at the muzzle.

With about 56.4 grains of today's much later ReLoDer 17, we can get about 2,800 ft/sec and 3,109 ft-lb at little more than 50,000 lb/sq in.

I'd consider that a lot better performance � with a heavier, more modern bullet than the 150-grain bullets commonly used in the 1940s .30-06, for much better retention of energy down-range.

To keep the comparison honestly comparable, I've compared loads with the same bullet and different powders. A comparison between different bullets with different powders would more dramatically demonstrate the greatly increased benefits offered by modern components.

Yes, it can.

The faster it starts out, the faster it loses velocity to the drag that it encounters in its travel. Timeless fact of physics.

Ok, Doctor. We'll all be sure to stop pushing the throttle around 50K. Just for you.


Travis

Or you could stuff '17 under a 208 A-Max and watch things get really fun.....

Tanner

Ken, I agree with you. Having been through the speed is all bug. And having found that happiness can be found in moderation.

Accuracy doesn't always equate with great speed, I think there is a thing called turrets that will compensate for this little indescretion brought on by age, and the fact that replacing a barrel is no longer fun.

Now as far as talking physics with Travis, if it goes past the amount of pressure needed to pop the tab on a beer can, or how much torque to remove a twist top off a bottle, then it is all totally useless info passing through the great void of cold, dark space between his ears.

If you don't have the brains to do it for yourself, I won't lose any dermis off my flabby ol' derriere.

While I may not be as brilliant as the good doctor, I can spot people talking out their ass pretty easily.

But you're spot on about the beer tab....


GFY,
Travis

An extra 100 fps won't hurt w.r.t. trajectory or wind drift. It will decay faster than the next 100 fps down.

No really, doctor. I'm gonna pass the word to all those .338 Edge and Lapua shooters so they are aware of your findings. Gonna throw the ol' RUM in the trash too.



Travis

Same here. Primers blowing up in your face will cause an attitude change.

High pressures lead to problems with brass life. High velocity may cause bullet performance issues.

Back down a little and life gets a lot easier, and you're not likely to see a difference in the field.

I didn't know we were talking about differences "in the field."



Travis

The comparison graph that compares the velocities of
� the .220 Swift with the 50-grain V-Max at 3,860 ft/sec
and
� my .220 Howell with the 75-grain A-max at 3,428 ft/sec
shows that the two cartridges' down-range velocities are the same at about 170 yards
� and
that the down-range energy from the heavier bullet is higher from the get-go.

IIRC, the peak pressures were about 60,000 lb/sq in. in the Swift and a tad under 50,000 lb/sq in. in the .220 Howell.

And of course, everything gets even better for my .220 past that cross-over point at about 170 yards � retained energy, time of flight, drop, and sideward wind drift.

(Some fine day, if I live long enough, I'll be able to post this graph here!)

Wow. A 75gr. A-Max beats a 50gr V-Max downrange. That's some MENSA level schit right there.

Can hardly get my head wrapped around it.


Travis

The thing is, many of the newer powders (such as the Ramshot line) seem to shoot a lot better at higher pressure.

On the subject of loading hot, I look at it like this - some 280 AI guys claim how close they are to the 7mm Rem Mag. Loading it to the hilt gets it fairly close. But then why not just buy a 7 Mag?

Same thing can be said of the 223 AI and the 22-250, as much as it pains me to say that . The mechanical aspects of the 223 AI (feeding issues, mag box mods) are certainly a pain. The 22-250 doesn't exhibit these tendencies....but I'm preaching to the choir here .

Anymore, when choosing a round, I look at the performance level I want to reach, and choose a round which will may utilize multiple bullets and powders to reach that point. When you gotta push pressures, or only have one bullet that will get you where you wanna be, it often turns into a frustrating endeavor. Sometimes your gun doesn't like that bullet, sometimes the velocities aren't what you hoped to achieve. That makes for a sad panda.

It's easy enough to understand � a simple matter of basic exterior-ballistics physics.

The ballistic coefficient (ability to retain velocity) is 0.255 for the 50-grain V-Max, 0.435 for the 75-grain A-Max.

(Since there are different ways to estimate ballistic coefficient, I like to use Hornady's figures � on the assumption that whatever method they use, they use it for all their bullets � and they're available on Hornady's web site! I think that they derive 'em from the data that they've compiled from their tunnel firings.)

Nowadays, we have access to a plethora of good powders that weren't there just a few years ago.

One wonderful consequence of this competition is that more than one powder are "optimum" for loading a given cartridge for the best combination of
(a) uncompacted case fill of 95�100% (more-consistent ignition, burning, and pressure)
and
(b) best combinations of maximum velocities and moderate peak pressures.

I love it!

If the 75 gr bullet at 3400 is better than the 50 gr bullet at 3800 or whatever, why not a 550 gr bullet at say 1300?

Shoot whatever makes you happy.

I was wondering when someone was gonna say that smokeless is a passing fad

Patiently awaiting my Shiloh .45-90 here.

But also toying with the idea of a 7mm Ultra...

And might shoot a doe this year with a 220 Matchking at subsonic speeds...

Yes, you and I agree on much when it comes to stuff in the field and the .223 AI vs. 22-250 is a good example of that.

But to state our next great progress should be the realization that cartridge design and load development should cease @ 50K is asinine.


Travis

Thank you so much, doctor.


Travis

Nostalgia is great, but it isn't going to win a Formula 1 race.



Travis

Nostalgia is good stalgia....

I'll remember that sage observation when I next try to win an F1 race. In the meantime, I'll just kill stuff my way.

Thanks.

Read the OP.


Thanks,
Travis

?

For example, here are the computer's calculated down-range velocities (ft/sec) for
� the 50-grain V-Max (BC 0.255) at 3,850 ft/sec � second column
and
� the 75-grain A-Max (BC 0.455) at 3,428 ft/sec � third column

100 yards � 3,498 � 3,238
200 yards � 3,174 � 3,057
300 yards � 2,873 � 2,883
400 yards � 2,592 � 2,716
500 yards � 2,329 � 2,555
600 yards � 2,080 � 2,399
700 yards � 1,848 � 2,249
800 yards � 1,634 � 2,105
900 yards � 1,422 � 1,966
1,000 yd � 1,277 � 1,822

Because of its lower ballistic coefficient, the 50-grain's velocity advantage at the muzzle (422 ft/sec)
gives way to the 75-grain's velocity advantage (555 ft/sec) at 1,000 yards � more than the lighter bullet's initial velocity advantage.

And the 75-grain has the energy advantage, remember, from the very beginning, and its advantage increases the farther that it goes.

See this?

This is saying we should stop producing ammunition that produces no more than 50K PSI. That's what we non-doctor types call "stupid."

The reason we call it "stupid" is because that leaves a lot on the table. For example, would I want to leave 200fps advantage to the guy I'm going to shoot against at a sniper match? After all, the .338 Lapua is designed to be shot at 60K. So if I'm not exceeding those pressures, why would I not do that?

Looked at another way, if I load a 7 mag with a 175gr Partion, with the intent of taking game out to 300yds, why would I not load the case to its full potential? Does the extra speed not flatten trajectory? Does the extra speed not reduce drift?

I'd like to think anybody that has shot a bit would understand this pretty plainly, but I guess not.

As to your Sharps rifle, I'm thrilled you like shooting game with it, but that has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is talking about the progression of cartridge development, and the cartridges you so adore are at the bottom of the [bleep]' heap.

So like I said, nostalgia is cool, but you're not going to kick anybody's ass with it in 2013.

Hope this makes sense. I'm damn near out of crayons.


Travis

Cartridge PROGRESS

Good job Ken. Good job...


Travis

Ken: You are using two extremes in B.C. though. From most ballistic charts I have followed, it is further out before the higher BC catches the speedier bullet. And often times the distance at which they are equal is beyond normal hunting ranges.

NAIL ON THE HEAD! I used to think I needed a lot of things that I now see I never needed. 4x4 truck with 35s. don't need it, 3.5" shells for ducks don't need em, 5 different shotguns, don't need em but like em and have em. 243 wssm don't need it or want it. 3000 sq foot house don't need it.

Was I disagreeing with you. Read again. It was pretty damn clear. Let me help, I said, "Shoot whatever makes you happy"

Now how does that disagree with you?



Don't bet on it.

Now, one more time, "Shoot whatever makes you happy"

Read that at least 10 times and call me if you have any questions.

Now, have a happy day.

Thanks

You need to read Ken�s entire philosophy on this, it�s not just lower pressure for lower velocity.

Ken, sorry if I synopsize this incorrectly, but as I understand it you take a bigger case and load it as full as possible with slow burning powder to a pressure of about 50 kpsi. The larger powder charge will still get the same velocity as a smaller case loaded to higher pressure and the slower burning powder loaded to 95% plus loading density is less quirky and prone to sudden unexpected increases in pressure than faster powders loaded to a higher pressure.

No one�s giving up velocity, you�re just getting it at lower pressure. One can buy into the whole deal behind lower pressure or not but that�s a different story.

A quote, I believe it is Ken�s or maybe he quoted someone else, is that reloading can be likened to riding a bicycle near the edge of the Grand Canyon in pitch darkness. You can sort of know when you�re close to the edge but can�t know exactly without some sophisticated (aka expensive) pressure testing equipemnt. You don�t actually know where the edge is until you go over it. Most folks like to stay as far from the edge as possible. Lots of folks like to assure themselves that it's a lot farther away than it is. Ken�s method takes you even farther, in actuality, without sacrificing any performance.

Again, if one thinks they are okay where they are then it�s a moot point. Most folks think they are great drivers as well, right up until they go through the windshield.


Also, it�s not a matter of �I�m right and everybody else is wrong�. There are always more than one way to skin a cat. It�s just a simple design philosophy, one can buy into it or not.

It seems to me that the super hot, super duper sonic cartridges seem to presume that everyone using them are crack shots and have used up all the performance our "old" cartridges have to offer. I tend to think of the efficiency of cartridges in the hunting sense. All the flash doesn't do much good if the hunter is not up to the task.
My 2 cents

If we drop back from 60,000 lb/sq in. to the much milder 50,000 lb/sq in. in the .30-06 with the 168-grain Sierra HPBT, for example, we don't lose very much in velocity or energy � from 3,041 ft/sec to 2,887 ft/sec (154 ft/sec less) and from 3,446 ft-lb to 3,109 ft-lb (337 ft-lb less).

By dropping back to 83.3% pressure, we drop back to 95% muzzle velocity and 90% energy. And these down-range differences diminish appreciably with the distance that the bullet travels. (Looking at it through the other end of the scope, we see that boosting the pressure doesn't buy us all that much in velocity and energy.)

Also, a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient further reduces the down-range deterioration by "bucking" the drag more efficiently.

If we're talking cartridge "progression", I'm not talking about hitting a deer. I'm talking about exceeding the capabilities of a previous cartridges.


Travis

Don't type angry.


Travis

Me angry? Never.

But don't read angry, you lose (even more) your ability to comprehend.

Thanks.

I figured a he-man like yourself would hunt Grizzly with a piss elm club.

BrentD the barbarian!!

I expect the movie to come out enny damn day, now.

Additional case life is one great reason for throttling back. You can load to 65000 and get three firings, or load at 50k and get 40 with proper annealing every few loads. I believe the point where brass no longer "springs" back is somewhere in the low 50s, but could be wrong on my number.

You don't think a loss of 150fps is a lot?

Well now we're talking about running up to 65K or stopping @ 50K. Big difference.

And for the record, the need to exceed 50K is one of the reasons Lapua brass has the reputation it does. They recognized the need, and progressed accordingly.


Travis

Wishing to believe in magic when I was younger it took me too long to realize that. But still it's fun to push the envelope. Not necessarily productive but fun, sort of tweaking the nose of the gods.

Maybe SAAMI will get the message and change the max pressure of the .280 back to 50K.

That's progress!


Travis

Mule Deer got me thinking too much on speed difference to my chagrin, I would like to believe in magic. Do the charts and see how few steps closer you need to get to achieve the same terminal velocity. Ain't many at very high muzzle velocity. Back to Ken's, "The faster it starts, the faster it loses..."

I know I am always looking to hamstring my various guns by loading them cold.

PS, faster bullets do not slow down faster if the BC's are the same. This whole arguement is BS because you guys are comparing apples to oranges.

x

That's true all the way down to arrows and slingshot velocities. So, that alone won't stand as sufficient argument.

You're right. I'll give up about 300fps with my 75gr A-Maxes. That way I can shoot .223 speeds in my 22-250.

Progress!


Travis

Sufficient argument for what? It's just an observation that super high velocities don't get you as much as it seems.The higher the velocity the higher the drag (square of the velocity IIRC) so the higher the rate of velocity loss. Fun to do it though.

Whiffleball vs baseball.

Never implied it wasn't fun or not worth doing. I took Ken's original post to mean take a calculated look at what you're gaining and what your giving up. Then rationally decide what meets your desires.

So if I launched one 75 gr Amax at 3000, and another 75 gr amax at 3300 at the same time. The slower one would pass the faster one?

For why 50K pressures should be the ceiling, or 40k, or ...

The point is simply that making optimization arguments based on one value (pressure in Ken's case) is sorta fruitless.

Really all Cartridge Progress ended with the 338 Win

Picked up a tad with the 450M and 480R

Snake

No, but generally faster means lighter, so thats when it applies. Air is denser than most people think.

If you really want to kick some ass, drop it down to 2,500fps.



Travis

If you keep it in your pocket it won't lose ANY speed at all! Dang, that would be the very best possible.

Progress!



Travis

You betchya. I knew you would catch on....

My dream is a 7mag loaded down to a 7-30 Waters.

Yep, my 7-30 waters loaded with 162 Amax will beat a 7 RUM loaded with 195 grain originals..Cutting edge

This is turning out to be a typical mixed-up Campfire thread, for more than one reason:

1) Modern high-BC bullets (commonly called VLD for Very Low Drag) do NOT lose more velocity when pushed faster. Instead the BC actually increases slightly at higher velocities.

2) Lower pressure doesn't necessarily result in more accuracy. It often used to, so much that "load under max" was common advice. But that advice began back when many powders, such as IMR4895, were designed to burn most consistently at less than 60,000 psi. Most of today's centerfire rifle powders are designed to burn most consistently at 60,000 psi or so.

3) If lower pressures resulted in greater accuracy, then benchrest shooters would be loading to 50,000 psi. They don't.
In fact they normally load to over 60,000 psi.

4) Pressure isn't the main cause of barrel erosion. If pressure was the cause, the .308 Winchester would erodes barrels as quickly as the .300 Weatherby. Instead heat's the main culprit, and the greater the powder charge, the longer heat erodes steel on each shot. The easiest way to lessen heat duration is to use less powder, not more powder at lower pressures, one reason smaller cases are becoming more popular for longer-range shooting. (The other, of course, is VLD bullets that don't slow down faster when pushed faster.)

I'm gonna go whack something with my .25-20. Phffffft-

I have my .32-20 in my lap as I type this.

Ed

Now I'm ascared.

deflave and deBrent are agreeing!

Thank you, John.

I think I see what you're saying. While lessening the effect of drag the slight increase in BC doesn't fully offset the increase in drag due to increased velocity, right? So VLDs fare somewhat better (plus the overall higher BC of course). Offhand how much would you say regarding BC increase at high velocity?

Or have I got it wrong (again )?

All essential cartridge progress halted with the advent of the 7x57....

I saw one in an antique shop once...neat cartridge. Kinda like a 270.

Then why are you such a vocal proponent of the. 270 Win.?

Ed

If it'd only work in a Winchester 94 you might have something.

You're not getting it.

In most bullets, especially blunt-nosed but also many soft-point spitzers, pushing them faster increases drag to the point where BC decreases, so they lose a higher percentage of their velocity at faster speeds.

This isn't how VLD bullets work, which is the reason they were developed in the first place. Their BC's do not decrease at higher velocities, in fact the BC's of the heaviest, most efficient VLD's actually INCREASE slightly at high velocities. Thus they do NOT lose relatively more velocity when pushed faster, they actually retain a higher percentage.

If you're really interested you should buy a copy of Bryan Litz's book, APPLIED BALLISICS FOR LONG-RANGE SHOOTING, and look at the tested G7 BC's for a bunch of different bullets. (G7 is the form factor that fit's VLD-type bullets far more closely than the older form factor, now generally known as G1, used in most factory and loading manual ballistics tables.)

Let me provide one example, the 6.5mm 140-grain Berger VLD, one of my favorites. At 1500 fps the G7 is .304, at 2000 fps it's .307, at 2500 fps it's 317, and at 3000 fps it's .323. (If you're used to thinking in G1 BC's, the increase at higher velocities is even more dramatic: .547 @ 1500, .610 @ 2000, .632 @ 2500 and .659 @ 3000.) The faster you push this bullet, the LESS velocity it loses.

The same applies to any well-designed modern bullet, and increase with weight in each caliber. Which is why the example Ken used, of a typical .22 caliber varmint bullet versus the 75-grain V-Max, is so dramatic.

fixed it for ya...

Thanks for the education. Looks like something interesting to investigate that I've ignored at my peril, now to try to find the time. Never imagined BC could increase to that extent given the practical constraints of bullet design.

If Jesus Christ reloaded, would he load his cartridges at 50K or 60K?

That's the REAL question and that answer and that answer alone is all the matters.

I've spent the past week attempting to get one of these




Into one of these





Progress IS fun!

You drive the short bus, dontcha?

Yep and those window lickers have nothing on those found on the 'Fire.

lol

Is easier if you're reloading a .50 BMG.

That's an old case that isn't loaded hot. Great BC, but it'll make your ears ring.

Happens all the time. You just don't pay attention

IME most of the powders I use shoot much better at higher pressures. Why hamstring the 30-06 at 60K,when a modern gun will handle 65k just fine?

I beg to differ and I have job experience in iron ore metallurgy. Modern quality steel is much better than turn of the century quality steel.

Dear Mr. Barsness,

I had 10 more pages planned for this thread, and your letting the cat out of the bag prematurely [bleep] that up.

Shame on you...


Travis

You gots to be a doctor or dumber to disagree with my logic.


Travis

If you want a real education, follow this formula:

Shoot different bullets at different speeds at different distances + look at the target = experts aren't always experts.


Travis

It appears as if Mr. Ackley did us all a great dis-service with all his fooling around with cartridges.

Should we dig Mr. Weatherby up and burn him at the stake?

And that foreigner, Lazzerini, or some such.......... you can tell by the name he was up to no good.

They key to success when using a Weatherby cartridge, is keeping 'er around 50K.

If you don't understand this, go get a PhD.


GFY,
Travis

Haven't read the whole thread, but I think the .220 Howell is a pretty interesting cartridge. And it looks like you can load it to 50ksi and still have the case full of powder, depending on what powder is selected.

Not real sure if you can do the same with a 7 mag or .300 win mag, let alone one of the Ultras. And I just don't like the idea of air space in the case when running a big boomer.

Sshh, don't tell Ken - but you can still load it to 65 kpsi if you want and it will embarrass a laser beam.

Yeah, the .220 Howell is where it's at...



Travis

� the temperature that�s inseparably associated with the pressure.

We don�t instrument test barrels to measure and to record temperatures, so we measure and record pressures in test barrels, and measure the associated temperatures in other laboratory paraphernalia (where we find, inter alia, that the temperatures associated with double-base powders [mixtures of nitrocellulose and 20�40% nitroglycerin, with an oxidizable stabilizer such as mineral jelly] are 400� F to 1,200� F higher than the temperatures that are associated with single-base powders at the same maximum temperatures).

Accustomed to measuring and recording pressures instead of temperatures in test barrels, we say as a matter of interior-ballistics short-hand, that it�s the pressures that erode barrels. But as John has just said, it�s actually the higher temperatures inseparably associated with these higher pressures that erode barrels.

What case is the 220 howell based on?

No, you can't, and no, it won't.

If you load it to 60,000 lb/sq in., you get a muzzle velocity of about 3,400 ft/sec and a muzzle energy of about 1,900 ft-lb � but the bullets fly apart just a few yards from the muzzle. Those little gray blobs that I've seen are neither very attractive nor very effective.

The .25-06 shortened to 2.400 inches, with a 0.375-inch neck and a 25� shoulder angle. Gross water capacity is about 62 grains.

Now, where did I say that I disagreed?

Try to keep up, but in the meantime, GFY very much.

You make an excellent point. It's true that I often don't pay attention to your posts.

Consider yourself lucky that you were following deflave.

With all due respect, it is very easy to see who has killed critters here and who has not.

A university degree does not earn respect, while killing, hunting experience and bush knowledge always does.

Who gives a rip about contrarian arguments? Probably those who are armchair hunters.

Yes, you can � and with delightful results.

I ran the numbers to be sure and to get some pertinent specifics, then typed a long, detailed response to your post �

� then fumble-fingered it into outer space.

I'll get back onto it tomorrow. 2 tard rat now. 'Tain't easy bein' senile!

G'night!

Ken, forgot 60,000 psi, that's underloading most cases...

Since I have no way of knowing what pressures my hand loads are creating, I strive for that magic velocity Mr. Barsness wrote an article on. 2700 fps.

Any deer hunting load producing 2600 to 2800 with reasonable accuracy has been good enough for me to keep the freezer full.

Find a copy of Mr. B's article from Handloader 244, Dec.-Jan. 2007 issue entitled, "The Perfect Velocity" and quit worrying about pressures we mere loonies can't measure.

Naw, it's the stoppin' that hurts.

I didn't say you did.

Consider me [bleep] regardless.



Travis

338 Ultra Mag:

180 Accubond.... 102 gr. H1000 CCI Primer

3.675 COL Avg 3421 fps

AD 1.8 ES 4.9 SD 2.5

Temp. 30 degrees


Of course, I'm no expert................ but I did sleep in my pickup last night.

This absolutely sums up all the technology that has been exhibited here...

I don't know about technology. I know what works for me.

When the Ultra Mags first came out, I got one of each: 7mm, 300, and 338.[the 375 -which may be the best of the bunch- came later]

I got two boxes of factory shells, one with the 225 gr. Nosler Partition, and one with 250 gr. CoreLokt, for the 338. So...... I knew what velocities to expect from those two bullet weights and still be in the "safe" realm.

Because the Swift Scirroco impressed me in the 7 Ultra as far as killing well, I tried the 210 gr. in the 338.

92 gr. AA 3100............ 3280 fps ..... ext. mark
94 gr. RL 22...............3357........... too hot!
98 gr. RL 25...............3354........... warm
95 gr. IMR 7828............3286........... warm
96 gr. RL 25...............3162........... warm
90 gr. RL 22...............3205.... no pressure signs
92 gr. RL 22...............3290.... sticky bolt
94 gr. IMR 7828............3260..... BINGO!

My point is that if a man is willing [and able] to spend the time, he can develop good loads for his own rifles by following the instructions given in most manuals as far as detecting pressure signs.

Measuring case head expansion served me well with the 7 mm and 300 Ultras as there was no load data available when I started. The 300 only had one bullet loaded in factory ammo, and there was no factory ammo available for the 7 MM.

It was not necessary with the 338 Ultra since I had two factory loads to use as a reference.

The idea that it is dangerous for us to work up our own data because we have to load PAST the Max. to determine what is Max has a certain validity as a THEORY.

When someone can point to modern cartridges causing catastrophic failures in modern actions by going to the point of extractor marks and sticky bolts and then backing off, I'll revisit my ideas on the subject.

As far as 2700 fps being adequate for most hunting, I'll agree with that with one caveat:

IF the hunter has ABSOLUTE confidence in the accuracy and killing power of the rifle,cartridge combo at the ranges he limits himself to.

I don't like being limited because of inferior equipment.

I shot a 308 for 35 years.

Ken,

Pressure and heat are definitely linked, but by no means directly correlated in rifle cartridges. My example of the .308 Winchester and .300 Winchester Magnum is a good example. The SAAMI pressure level for both is over 60,000 psi (as I recall 62K for the .308 and 64K for the .300). The .300 burns out barrels quicker not because of 2000 more psi but because the duration of the heat from its larger powder charges lasts longer during each shot.

Big case? Big fire. Little case? Little fire.

Pressure shmessure.

Travis

I love it when the discussion gets all scientific like that.

I'm sure Kenny is ringing the 1000 yard gong weekly with VLD's.

The case head expansion method of measuring pressure is notoriously unreliable, especially when no factory ammo is available for comparison.



Why would it take a catastrophic failure for someone to realize they are over the top?

A round may cause enough pressure to get stuck in the chamber, which may end a hunt. Sounds like reason enough for me to stay away from crazy people loads.



How would an extra 400 fps change this statement?

Ken, what kind of barrel life do you expect with your 220 cartridge compared to 220 swift .

So if I loaded a 250 Savage with the max charge of IMR-3031 at 50K (case at 73% fill) and then loaded a 250 Savage with as much H50BMG that could fit in the case (110%), but at only 35K, the case with twice as much powder would do less damage to the barrel because it's at a lower pressure?

Your first two questions are frankly not worthy of answers.

The third is borderline, but I'll give you a break:

With identical bullets, 400 fps more velocity flattens the trajectory enough to be meaningful, not to mention increasing the bullet's killing range.

Neither of these factors are important to a man twisting turrets and poking holes in paper or ringing a gong.

They make a difference to a hunter.

You have got to be kidding me! Another [bleep] retard Texan on ignore.

Always good to know there are shooters out there who still develop handloads by pushing brass to the max, then backing off a smidgen.

Measuring CHE can work, but only if you have something to compare it to. There is no "magic" amount of expansion that guarantees safe pressures, because cartridge brass varies too much in hardness. This has been proven a number of times over the decades, but apparently you missed the memos.

I don't use the "ignore" feature. Reading posts from idiots is sometimes entertaining.

I just put the little magnifying glass next to their names to remind me that the poster is prone to idiotic posts.

They are free.

You have one on my screen.

My guess is if you load a .50 BMG to the gills with 3031 it will have a short barrel life due to pressure.

Nope, I got the memos. And I have the manuals that STILL offer it as ONE way to monitor excessive pressures.

Matter of fact, the first batches of Ultra Mag brass was REALLY prone to expansion. And extractor marks in factory ammo was not uncommon in the 300. Not so much with the 338 as I recall.

I measured the case heads of factory loads in the 300 and 338 BEFORE and AFTER firing. That was my basis for comparison. I pulled bullets and powder from some and used that brass to compare expansion in my loads.

Do you know of any modern catastrophic failures of rifle actions due strictly to excessive pressure?

And where did you read that I "backed off a smidgen"?

Once data became available, I saw that the loads I settled on as max for my rifles were less, - or in one case, equal to - the max loads in Nosler and Hodgden data.

Last time I looked, the 210 gr., 338 Scirroco was still off the market. I called the owner of Swift and pointed out that the starting load for a 200 gr. NBT was well over max for a 210 Scirroco, and , in the absence of any data for the Swift, lots of guys might do like me and start from there.

I don't know if that played a part in his decision, or not, but he DID offer me a box of bullets for free.

You were applying pressure and wore him out?

Musta been the heat that got to him...


Ed

and yet when pushed alot of those Swedish Mausers with less steel blow at higher pressures than some of the new ones even though the Swedes are supposed to be a weak design lacking a 3rd lug.....while i have ZERO problems with a Ruger ild take the steel off of a 1895 Lowe Mauser or 1896 Swede over the cast action of a Ruger for strength any day when put into the same design.....

consistency is FAR better today but just cause its newer doesnt necessarily make it better, hell the steel in alot of Viking swords from the 900's is superior to a hell of alot of the steel used in high dollar custom knives with far fewer inclusions.....more than a few modern metallurgy experts could not believe the results of the tests done on some a few years ago.....

curdog,

Thanks for the additional info. Some of it was there in your first post, but not all--and I must confess I wasn't tracking very well, thanks to a couple of factors. You used CHE correctly. It's pretty accurate when combined with a chronograph!

Yeah, I still have some of the older manuals and magazines that discuss how much CHE is "safe" for various types of brass. It turned out they were wrong, but that was what they had at the time.

Yeah, I do know of one rifle come apart with loads worked up by effects on cases. Can't remember what the action was, but it was modern bolt action. It took a while for the same loads to do the job, and many were shot in hot weather, which also had an effect. Don't know if there was a defect in the action or steel, which is awful hard to determine after the fact anyway, but that's also a possibility even in today's rifles, one reason manufacturers have the pressure limits they do.

Bob Hagel also bulged some rifle chambers to the point where the barrel was useless when working up loads with CHE and the traditional pressure signs. He had a chronograph, but wanted to find the "real limits" of various cartridges.

I like the comparison of the F1 car and the high pressure cartridge. An F1 car is very fast but is rebuilt for every race, and a good number don't even finish one race. Plus, some of the best F1 drivers in history died in those cars.

Here's progress: The .30-06 that won WWII and Korea was standardized at 2750 fps when the Garand was adopted. The .300 Savage Hornady Superperformance round pushes a 150 grain bullet at 2740 fps, and does it within SAAMI pressure of 46K. I can load that ammo into my svelte, beautiful Savage 99 and get performance that required a bolt gun or military grade auto in the 1930s.

Ken,

While I agree with you that high temperature wears out barrels, and that pressure = temperature, I'm not sure that going the route of lots of slow powder in the 220 Howell makes any sense in 2013. I asked myself "What's more expensive over 5000 shots, high pressure 223, or low pressure 220 Howell."
This boils down to paying for two barrels but using less powder and cheap cases, or using more powder with expensive cases. There are other cost considerations for the 220 Howell as well, to be noted below.

Assumptions:
220 Howell shoots out the barrel in 5000 rounds
.223AI shoots out the barrel in 2500 rounds.
No primer price difference between the two cases, so that cost is not factored.
You'll need to buy the 220 Howell reamer, as it's not widely available for chambering at gunsmiths.
A fully fitted barrel costs $500
Interpolating your published data on the 220 Howell, assume 53.5 grains of 7828=50Kpsi and 3450 fps.


220 Howell breakdown
1 Howell reamer from PTG = $138
1 PacNor barrel, fitted $500
53.5 grains 7828 gives 131 cases/lb - 1 lb @25.49 = $.195/round
75 grain Amax [email protected] = $.190/round
500 cases = $300, assume 10 reloads/case
3450 fps, zero@ 200 yards,drop at 500 = 29"


223 breakdown
2 PacNor barrels, fitted = $1000
24.5 grains RL15 = 285 rounds/lb 1 [email protected] = $.082/round
80 grain Sierra HPBT [email protected] = $.155/round
1500 once fired LC $187.50 (GI Brass) assume 5 reloads/case, sorting for best 1000 cases
2800 fps, zero @ 300 yards, drop at 500 = 34.2"

.220 Howell Cost 5000 rounds Powder/bullet = $1925 + $500 barrel + $300 cases + $138 reamer = $2863

.223 Cost 5000 rounds: powder/bullet $1185 + $1000 Barrels +$187.5 cases = $2372.5


Looks like the smaller, slower, higher pressure cartridge has a savings of $.10/round.

Scott

P.S. I just realized there would be an additional cost for the custom 220 Howell reloading dies. Note that because of high demand, Redding isn't taking orders for custom dies at this time. I don't use dies other than Redding, though some folks like other brands just fine. This is going to add at least a C-note, maybe two to the cost of the 220 Howell

Sources:Midway USA and gibrass.com for component costs. PacNor for barrel costs. Hornady USA for ballistics on the 75 AMAX at 3400 fps. SWAG for barrel fitting costs. Sierra 50th anniversery reloading manual for 80 grain HPBT ballistic chart. Redding for die availability/costs. Various sources on the web for real life velocities from the .223/80 grain combination in varmint length barrels.

.223 AI is toast in 2500 rounds?



Travis

I seriously doubt it. I'm just being overly pessimistic with numbers for the small high pressure cartridge, in order to drive home the point that big, low pressure cartridges really aren't all that more economical in the real world, once all the costs are tallied up.

Scott

Good, because I just had this one screwed on.

I don't think doctors use math but you did a good job breaking that down.


Travis

What's a 223AI?

a good looking woman judging by the thread down in the hunting rifle section....

There are doctors of math.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/8082264/1

Can they write a prescription?

Take two derivatives and call me in the morning.

I'll integrate that into my health plan!

Find a specialist in the insurance field, give them a ring, and check into a group plan.

Edit: Italics added. I think my pun algebra was too abstract.

If that wasn't the 'best fit', I would accuse you of a plot.

You are a calculating individual.









OK, now I'm out!

I feel like I am watching a scene from Big Bang Theory...



Travis

I love that show. Tonight at 8/7 central.

I'd love to be a good enough mathematician to be at Caltech, but I wouldn't go there.

Oh sure, and you probably rho, rho, rho your boat, hey?

The doctor thing reminds me of a time I met with a counselor at college. I can't recall her last name so let us say it was Smith.

I walked into her office and said 'Hello Ms. Smith, I'm Scott ___' she immediately replied 'It's DOCTOR Smith, not Ms. Smith'

To which I replied 'Oh, you're a doctor, good because I have this sudden shooting pain in my lower back, maybe you can help me with it'

CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow.

Sounds like we are in a kitchen when we start talking about toast, which reminds me of another thing found in a kitchen...a "spatula" which is something a 223 AI wishes it was, which is a 222 Remington Magnum.

All of this brought to you by a well know law of mathematics known as the rule of association...

I'd be curious if there are any high power rifle records held by a round loaded to 50kpsi.

That sounds like Barbara (dog) Boxer in that hearing a while back when she dressed down a General by letting it be known that she was SENATOR Boxer!

To quantify the physical fact that the faster a bullet starts out, the faster it slows down, I've just run the exterior-ballistics figures for a typical .308 bullet with a ballistic coefficient of 0.415 at muzzle velocities of 2,600, 2,400, and 2,200 ft/sec �

Muzzle � 2,600, 2,400, 2,200 ft/sec (the fastest starts 400 ft/sec faster than the slowest)
100 yd � 2,388, 2,197, 2,007 ft/sec (the fastest is now 381 ft/sec faster than the slowest)
200 yd � 2,186, 2,005, 1,825
300 yd � 1,994, 1,822, 1,654
400 yd � 1,812, 1,652, 1,487
500 yd � 1,642, 1,495, 1,356
600 yd � 1,486, 1,354, 1,234
700 yd � 1,347, 1,233, 1,135
800 yd � 1,226, 1,134, 1,059
900 yd � 1,129, 1,058, 1,001
1,000 yd � 1,054, 1,000, 954 (the fastest is now only 100 ft/sec faster than the slowest)

BUT, here's the crux: if it starts out faster, it will remain faster all the way to the target (given equal BC).

MV and BC are our tools to fight drift/drop, so IMO, it's hamstringing yourself to cut either

Worth watching just to drool over Penny {Kaley Cuoco}.