MidwestCrisis said

It really seems like Chuck is applying black powder principles to smokeless.    
  

That is precisely what he appears to be doing.  Based on his past comments & posts, his experience with using IMR 4198 is both limited and very recent.

On the other hand, I have been safely reloading older black powder cartridges with it for 40+ years now.  Just in this past year I reloaded a total of 500-rounds with IMR 4198, (50) 40-70 Ballard, (50) 40-70 Sharps Straight, (250) 38-55, and (150) 25-20 Single Shot.  These were all with specific loads that I have previously reloaded and accuracy tested.

Bert

Chuck said

Bert H. said

 

Chuck,
As you well know, I am a retired Sr. Engineer, and I worked in that field for 44-years. The so-called "experts" that you so desperately and willingly want to believe (trust) were not educated or trained engineers or scientists. None of them designed or formulated gun powder or anything related to it.  They simply experimented with reloading and developed their own opinions from it, and then published their non scientifically observed results.
Bert
  

And neither are you and most of your posts are just your opinion.  
When it comes to load development you are not the one that will lead me anywhere. 
  

I’m also an engineer, title is “technologist “ because I didn’t go to school for 4 years. I went to work. I have what’s called “equivalent experience”.  I understand why chuck won’t alter his process.  And I see how berts recommended advice could help.  But if I were chuck and hadn’t blown up a gun in my face, I sure wouldn’t do something that I thought would cause such a thing. Y’all know more about lead and powder than I do.  It really seems like Chuck is applying black powder principles to smokeless.  I’m honestly scared of black powder.  Way too volatile to have around before I understand it.    Just saying from a couple stools down.  

Bert H. said

Chuck,
As you well know, I am a retired Sr. Engineer, and I worked in that field for 44-years. The so-called "experts" that you so desperately and willingly want to believe (trust) were not educated or trained engineers or scientists. None of them designed or formulated gun powder or anything related to it.  They simply experimented with reloading and developed their own opinions from it, and then published their non scientifically observed results.

Bert
  

And neither are you and most of your posts are just your opinion.  

When it comes to load development you are not the one that will lead me anywhere. 

Bert H. said

Louis Luttrell said
Bert-
Good catch!!!  I thought I was the only person with "keyboarding" (typewriter) issues...  Apparently not...
There was a discussion recently (outside this forum) about some (questionable) pre-64 M70 barrels in 9 M/M that were not even close to 6-groove 1" in 12" twist...  Something like 5-groove 1" in 15" twist.  I used these factory prints to suggest (supporting their already drawn conclusion) that they weren't legit...  So I was curious if you'd found something indicating that the documents I posted were not consistent with actual factory production of any chambering listed (given that I think these are Gauge Shop documents NOT Barrel Shop).
Did Winchester ever make a 5-groove barrel???
Lou
  

Lou,
As both and Engineer (retired) and a Technical writer, I tend to be sharp-eyed and critical as it applies to technical specification data. Accordingly, the information for the Model 74 22 Short does not make technical sense to me.
I do not know if Winchester ever used 5-groove rifling, but I suspect not.  I would ask this question to Mark, as he is the one person I know that has knowledge of the barrel making process.
Bert
  

I'm not sure if this applies here to you're Question Lou, but Winchester did make a 5 groove barrel for their M-1873, as far as the First model and most of the second model's were concerned, if not all of the second models. Bob can verify that if need be, before they went to the 6 groove barrel for all of the third models.

Tony

Chuck said
OH Bert,  a lot of bull.  I use filler because that is what the experts say to use.  According to you they are all "cranks".  I do not compress the load but I do keep it all next to the primer.  I have been using toilet paper for over 35 years and never have had a problem once I figure out the best amount to use.  The toilet paper keeps the card, in this situation, and powder next to the primer so it all goes off at the same time.  The bullet does push the toilet paper in by about 3/8" in the 40 EX.  Flash over, which is a documented fact, could cause incomplete ignition and guns have blown up.  I have had problems when not using a filler.  The ignition is not as it should be and it shows up on the chronograph as some erratic speed.  Just like the time I compressed the load in the 40 EX.   What you need to do is load your longest case with the reduced load of smokeless and drop the barrel below vertical just before you shoot so the powder is up against the bullet and see if your ES is still the same over 5 shots. 
Like I said, I want to be safe and I will not do as you say.  I spent 42 years in engineering and construction groups and just because it works on paper does not mean it works in the real world.  I believe the Experts, the target and the chronograph.  
  

Chuck,

As you well know, I am a retired Sr. Engineer, and I worked in that field for 44-years. The so-called "experts" that you so desperately and willingly want to believe (trust) were not educated or trained engineers or scientists. None of them designed or formulated gun powder or anything related to it.  They simply experimented with reloading and developed their own opinions from it, and then published their non scientifically observed results.

The erratic results you have experienced and stated thus far with your 40 EX cartridge loading experiment are in fact the direct result of what I have tried to enlighten you with. I urge you to put your emotions aside, and then critically evaluate what is causing the erratic results you are seeing. 

I will leave you with this... "You can lead a horse to water..."

Bert

Like I said, I want to be safe and I will not do as you say.  I spent 42 years in engineering and construction groups and just because it works on paper does not mean it works in the real world.  I believe the Experts, the target and the chronograph.  

I can work.up with 3031, 4064, 4198, 4350. All IMR. 

Thanks

Chuck said

Bert H. said

Chuck said

  

Bert we went through this for weeks.  I knew you couldn't agree to disagree.  
  

Chuck,
You restarted this silly argument with your comments in post #107.  Just in case you are not aware, it takes two to tangle, and you are 50% of the problem (argument).
  

Wrong again, you need to read your comments in post 104.  I have said all along that I will never quit using toilet paper as a filler.  I prefer to err on the side of safety.  Unless you can actually show me some proof and not just an opinion.  
  

Chuck,

I suggest you enroll in a college level physics class and learn why your theories on the use of uncontrolled filler weight and placement in a confined cylindrical container/space is a recipe for failure.

The first serious inconsistency issue that you are creating is the use of an over powder card.  Unless you can precisely control the weight, and physical placement of the powder card inside the cartridge case, you are introducing an uncontrollable variable that will cause pressure variances upon ignition of the powder. Further, it is critical to control the compression pressure of the powder to insure a consistent burn rate.  Compressing the powder has an effect on both the burn rate and the corresponding pressure that it creates upon ignition.

The next uncontrollable variable that you are introducing is the weight & volume of the toilet paper filler.  Do you weigh each piece of TP that you place in the cartridges and ensure that it is exactly the same?  Do you position it in precisely in the case and in the exact same location from load to load?  I am willing to bet that the answer to each of my questions NO. 

When you change the internal volume & space of the cartridge case with filler and powder cards, you are altering the burn rate and pressure of the measured powder charge.  With no filler and no over card, it will give you a much more consistent burn rate for a powder that it not position sensitive.  Because IMR 4198 is not position (as stated by Dupont) or temperature sensitive, it is a very good choice for the larger (older) former black powder cartridges.  Numerous gun cranks in the past have advocated its use as well (Frank Barnes at the top of the list, and he did not mention fillers for its use).

Bert

Louis Luttrell said
Bert-
Good catch!!!  I thought I was the only person with "keyboarding" (typewriter) issues...  Apparently not...
There was a discussion recently (outside this forum) about some (questionable) pre-64 M70 barrels in 9 M/M that were not even close to 6-groove 1" in 12" twist...  Something like 5-groove 1" in 15" twist.  I used these factory prints to suggest (supporting their already drawn conclusion) that they weren't legit...  So I was curious if you'd found something indicating that the documents I posted were not consistent with actual factory production of any chambering listed (given that I think these are Gauge Shop documents NOT Barrel Shop).
Did Winchester ever make a 5-groove barrel???
Lou
  

Lou,

As both and Engineer (retired) and a Technical writer, I tend to be sharp-eyed and critical as it applies to technical specification data. Accordingly, the information for the Model 74 22 Short does not make technical sense to me.

I do not know if Winchester ever used 5-groove rifling, but I suspect not.  I would ask this question to Mark, as he is the one person I know that has knowledge of the barrel making process.

Bert

Good catch!!!  I thought I was the only person with "keyboarding" (typewriter) issues...  Apparently not...

There was a discussion recently (outside this forum) about some (questionable) pre-64 M70 barrels in 9 M/M that were not even close to 6-groove 1" in 12" twist...  Something like 5-groove 1" in 15" twist.  I used these factory prints to suggest (supporting their already drawn conclusion) that they weren't legit...  So I was curious if you'd found something indicating that the documents I posted were not consistent with actual factory production of any chambering listed (given that I think these are Gauge Shop documents NOT Barrel Shop).

Did Winchester ever make a 5-groove barrel???

Lou

Bert H. said

Chuck said

  

Bert we went through this for weeks.  I knew you couldn't agree to disagree.  
  

Chuck,
You restarted this silly argument with your comments in post #107.  Just in case you are not aware, it takes two to tangle, and you are 50% of the problem (argument).
  

Wrong again, you need to read your comments in post 104.  I have said all along that I will never quit using toilet paper as a filler.  I prefer to err on the side of safety.  Unless you can actually show me some proof and not just an opinion.  

Louis Luttrell said
Hi Bert-
Given that those pages were in the middle of a bunch of scanned blueprints of ammunition test barrels (pressure test barrels, accuracy barrels, etc.), I suspect they came from the Gauge Shop (where the test barrels were made) rather than the Barrel Shop.  Or else they were just miss filed...
Still... I'd hope they accurately reflect the bore specifications of the barrels that went onto production guns.  Which ones are "odd"?  I think the M54/70 specs are accurate but I don't know a Blessed thing about anything else...
Best,
Lou
  

Lou,

What I find odd is the Model 74 22 Short barrel specifications in relationship to all of the other models chambered for the 22 Short cartridge.  Additionally, in Post #20 there is a gross error (or a typo) for the 40/110 Exp.  It states .3055" for the "Rifling Dia." where it should actually be .4055".

Bert

Chuck said

Bert we went through this for weeks.  I knew you couldn't agree to disagree.  
  

Chuck,

You restarted this silly argument with your comments in post #107.  Just in case you are not aware, it takes two to tangle, and you are 50% of the problem (argument).

Given that those pages were in the middle of a bunch of scanned blueprints of ammunition test barrels (pressure test barrels, accuracy barrels, etc.), I suspect they came from the Gauge Shop (where the test barrels were made) rather than the Barrel Shop.  Or else they were just miss filed...

Still... I'd hope they accurately reflect the bore specifications of the barrels that went onto production guns.  Which ones are "odd"?  I think the M54/70 specs are accurate but I don't know a Blessed thing about anything else...

Best,

Lou