Of course, if you've worked up as you should,  you'll reach Z by titrating up to it and won't have to fire any blue pills that test your rifle's bolt strength. 

One African PH, discussing dangerous game cartridges, said he would trade some velocity for easy bolt lift. 

Most amusing part of the article is that Waters' 250 Savage project started out because of poor accuracy and he blamed the existing barrel. After a difficult barrel change it was discovered that the poor accuracy was due to the scope mount. I don't think his data are going to help Zeb much as the 1903 rifle had very little in common with Zeb's 99. I believe the barrel was shorter as well. The fact that he arrived at a very similar load to your load is actually quite remarkable.

Mike

I now have 10.5 lbs. of IMR 4198 and 2 lbs. of H4198 and should be set for at least the next several years of reloading and shooting.  Time to get busy reloading another 500-rounds of 222 Rem Mag.

Bert

I loaded up a ladder with Olin 760 ball and the lowest rung locked the bolt up to where I bruised my hand hammering to open it. Flattened, extruded primer and impressive recoil. 

After that I became much more cautious about chamber dimensions and OAL. 

I just enjoyed Ken Waters' August 1995 article on the 250 Savage. His max load for an 87gr Sierra using IMR 3031 is 34grs (lining up nicely with Bo's experience) but he cautioned that his max loads were developed for a custom 1903 in a Mannlicher stock. He cautioned against using them in a lever gun so your plan to work up to 34 grains is sound, as always. Unless you have some VV N135 or RL-15 lying around the IMR 3031 seems to be a good choice. I don't know if you have Waters' Pet Loads in your library, the article made for interesting reading but I wish he had stumbled across a nice 99 to test loads in as I had no experience with this or any quarter bore. Let me know if you can't find his article, looking forward to spotting for you when you shoot this little rifle. 

Mike

Bill

Thanks,

Adam

MidwestCrisis said

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.  
  

Adam, I'm sort of like you.  I got drafted while in college and never went back when I got out.  I had a good job waiting and a family to take care of.  I have had many titles.  At one time I was an Engineering Aid.  But the last 20 years I was a project manager.  Depending on my assignments I would hire an Engineer if one was needed.  Many summers the company I worked for hired college students that were future engineers.  I used to get one and try to instill upon them the need to go into the field and learn about what they were about to engineer.  It is a rare occasion when you find an engineer that is book smart and has common sense.  I spent a big part of my career working with the Operation and Maintenance Supervisors to rebuild something that an Engineer designed that didn't work. "Worked on paper".

I have been collecting the old loading manuals and any books that are about loading or ballistics from the era when loaders started using smokeless powder in the black powder cartridges.  I do try to keep the speed down to around the black powder speed.  But, speed does not indicate what the chamber pressure really is.  So I watch pressure signs very closely.  Many writers/shooters of this period recommended/used fillers of some sort.  Toilet paper is the choice of many. Some of these same writers talk about flash over.  This can occur when using small loads of smokeless powder in large black powder cases.  The primer ignites the powder, not all at once, but down along the top of the spread out powder.  Guns did blow up and people got killed.

I have been using 4198 since 1990.  I do not use fillers in short cases.  Bert is exaggerating some.  When I met him I don't really know if he was actually loading but I can tell you his knowledge base was all about the highwalls.  He's a very smart guy and has learned a lot since but he can be scary when it comes to loading. But so are some of the writers of loading manuals.  Some of these guy's loads can be a little hot.  You should not be shooting smokeless powder in your old guns without using a chronograph and understanding the signs of pressure. 

I have never seen a noted expert, that has written a book on loading or ballistics, say that a filler, used properly, is bad. 

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