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 lever 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 is 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

Bert H. said

Chuck said

Bert H. said
Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round.  If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight.  In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper.  It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
  

Bert, If I had more fire formed brass I would have shot more of each load.  But I don't and I don't want to ruin more of the parent brass.
I can't explain why #2 did what it did.  None of the rounds were hard to extract.  #2 and #5 did show marks from the extractor due to pressure.
You are making statements that can't be backed up with any known documentation by any experts.  The early ballasticians of the day when they were using smokeless powder in the longer black powder brass disagree with your assumptions.  They say to use a filler and that's what I will do. 
The only guess I will make is that this brass probably has less case volume than the original factory 40 EX brass.  When the parent brass was squeezed down the material went somewhere.  
  

Chuck,
The only way for you to get reasonably accurate load data is to measure the volume of all (5) of your test cartridge cases and then load them precisely with the exact same load.  Then go shoot them with your chronograph recording.
I suspect that you are correct in that the case capacity is something less than an original WRACo case.  But you should first verify and document it.  
In regard to the use of fillers, I am not making any assumptions what-so-ever... I am simply repeating and adhering to what Dupont stated about the use if their IMR 4198.  I will back that up with my own personal experience loading and shooting both the 40-70 Ballard and 40-70 Sharps Straight cartridges using IMR 4198 with no fillers or over powder cards.  Both are long straight walled cartridges and when loaded with 24 - 28 grains of 4198, they shoot perfectly.  For my 38-55 (which is essentially a scaled down but very similar contour to the 40 EX) I load it with 22 grains of IMR 4198... again, a very accurate and consistent load in my Single Shot high-wall rifle.
Bert
  

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

Chuck said

Bert H. said
Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round.  If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight.  In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper.  It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
  

Bert, If I had more fire formed brass I would have shot more of each load.  But I don't and I don't want to ruin more of the parent brass.
I can't explain why #2 did what it did.  None of the rounds were hard to extract.  #2 and #5 did show marks from the extractor due to pressure.
You are making statements that can't be backed up with any known documentation by any experts.  The early ballasticians of the day when they were using smokeless powder in the longer black powder brass disagree with your assumptions.  They say to use a filler and that's what I will do. 
The only guess I will make is that this brass probably has less case volume than the original factory 40 EX brass.  When the parent brass was squeezed down the material went somewhere.  
  

Chuck,

The only way for you to get reasonably accurate load data is to measure the volume of all (5) of your test cartridge cases and then load them precisely with the exact same load.  Then go shoot them with your chronograph recording.

I suspect that you are correct in that the case capacity is something less than an original WRACo case.  But you should first verify and document it.  

In regard to the use of fillers, I am not making any assumptions what-so-ever... I am simply repeating and adhering to what Dupont stated about the use if their IMR 4198.  I will back that up with my own personal experience loading and shooting both the 40-70 Ballard and 40-70 Sharps Straight cartridges using IMR 4198 with no fillers or over powder cards.  Both are long straight walled cartridges and when loaded with 24 - 28 grains of 4198, they shoot perfectly.  For my 38-55 (which is essentially a scaled down but very similar contour to the 40 EX) I load it with 22 grains of IMR 4198... again, a very accurate and consistent load in my Single Shot high-wall rifle.

Bert

Bert H. said

Mike,
If I understand what Chuck did, he does not have an SD for just the 31.5 gr load because he shot just (1) round.  If I understand it correctly, he loaded (5) total cartridges, each with a different charge weight.  In his shoes, I would have loaded all (5) empties with the exact same load, shot them, and recorded the results, then repeat with the next powder charge weight.
There is no explanation for his #2 load being both faster in velocity and harder to extract than loads #3 and # 4 except for uncontrolled variances in his over-powder card placement and/or the (unneeded) rolled toilet paper between the powder card and the bullet.
The only way to control (eliminate) the oddities that he is experiencing in his load performance is to stop using the over powder cards and toilet paper.  It is not needed with IMR 4198.
Bert
  

Bert, If I had more fire formed brass I would have shot more of each load.  But I don't and I don't want to ruin more of the parent brass.

I can't explain why #2 did what it did.  None of the rounds were hard to extract.  #2 and #5 did show marks from the extractor due to pressure.

You are making statements that can't be backed up with any known documentation by any experts.  The early ballasticians of the day when they were using smokeless powder in the longer black powder brass disagree with your assumptions.  They say to use a filler and that's what I will do. 

The only guess I will make is that this brass probably has less case volume than the original factory 40 EX brass.  When the parent brass was squeezed down the material went somewhere.  

TXGunNut said

Chuck said

TXGunNut said
Progress! What was the SD for the 4th load?
 
Mike
  

I'm not sure what you are asking?
  

I misunderstood, I didn't realize you were only shooting one of each load. Maybe I just like loading, shooting and data but I don't feel like one round will tell you much. I'm glad you addressed the primer issue. They almost never cause problems but it's an easy thing to try when things get wonky.
 
Mike
  

Mike, at this stage I was just testing the charge weights trying to find the max load.  I will pick the one I like and do some 5 shot groups.  I only have 5 cases that are fire formed.  I don't want to ruin anymore brass.  When I have the loading die set made I will fire form some more. 

Louis Luttrell said
Hi Bert-
I honestly don't know... 
This came from my trolling the McCracken digital library for M70 related stuff...  I'm sure you noticed that I "oversimplified" my description, as the second pic is actually a 1938 extraction of centerfire calibers that had been discontinued since the 1930 version.  Still it showed the M54 bore specifications from 1930, which is why I posted it...
I wish the McCracken library had the time/personnel to make their holdings useful/accessible... Insofar as I can tell it's hopeless unless you have the time (and influence) to be permitted to go through the MS20 (WRACO records) yourself...  If only there were a knowledgeable Winchester "historian" who could take a Sabbatical and spend a year bringing order to what (I think) is a disorganized mess...
Lou
  

Lou-

I'm glad I'm not the only one having trouble accessing the incredible amount of data that appears to be accessible online. In my case I'm sure it is mostly the result of my IT shortcomings but it looks like a fantastic resource. While you're at it could you see what you can do about MS63? There's a needle in that haystack that might be a big help for something I'm working on.

Mike

Chuck said

TXGunNut said
Haven't seen that box before. I suppose you didn't need a case mouth expander. Have you used Lee's Factory Crimp die?
 
 
Mike
  

I assume there is an expander on the shaft in the F/L die.  I haven't used the die set yet but I do use one of their crimp dies for my 44 WCF. 
  

Chuck-

I use a case mouth expander for most cast lead bullets, especially if they have a sharp base. I use a Lyman M-Die and an expander a couple thousandths smaller than the bullet. It also flares the case mouth so I don't damage the bullet when I start it down the neck. The FCD will remove the flare.

Mike