PDA

View Full Version : Misinformation You Can Find in Magazines.



DAVE FRANCE
10-11-2010, 01:05 PM
I found some misinformation in a recently published magazine. The magazine very clearly stated that 1f or 2f black powder will burn faster that smaller granule size powder (3f). It explained that the large granules help the powder burn faster because the allows more room for air that aids combustion. I think most N-SSA members know that black powder does not need air at all to burn. Potassium nitrate (also called saltpetre) provides oxygen when it is heated that allows the charcoal and sulfur to burn.

There are a lot of good magazines and books published with accurate information.

David

Eggman
10-11-2010, 06:18 PM
Some stuff like this is stupid. Some is downright dangerous. I was at a "gunsmith" shop at a tourist attraction a number of years ago where the proprietor, when asked "Are these guns safe," told the inquirer that "We once loaded one of these guns all the way to the end of the barrel with black powder, pushed in a ball, and set her off. Nothing happened." Yes I did inform the management about the problem.

DAVE FRANCE
10-11-2010, 06:44 PM
Good point Eggman,

I have heard several people say that if you load a black powder firearm with black powder to the end of the barrel, you can't cause damage to the firearm, because the pressure will be to low. But, I have seen referances to tests that showed a maximum pressure of 100,000 psi can be reached with black powder.

David

rampa_room_artillery
10-12-2010, 05:42 PM
but once you get past 130 or so grains you are burning the rest of the powder outside of the barrel.

Eggman
10-12-2010, 08:00 PM
Can you site a test to back this up? I've seen many barrel failure tests via the old Buckskin Report but have never heard this claim. Increasing the powder charge always raised pressure - increments added often passing the 200 grain range with pressure readings always steadily increasing..

John Holland
10-13-2010, 12:35 AM
Eggman -

Do you remember/know why the Buckskin Report folded?

JDH

Eggman
10-13-2010, 05:27 PM
I guess the bottom line was they spread themselves too thin. They first expanded to a second magazine - "Black Powder Cartridge Rifles," and when this met with limited success, they folded it into the "Buckskin Report" and changed the name of the latter to "The Blackpowder Report." Of course the hard core buckskinners objected to this and membership began to sag. Then John Baird retired and that was the final straw. The magazine folded in the late 80s.
Anyway at its peak the "Buckskin Report" was hell bent for leather after "junk" guns and began documenting failures. Then a guy (metalurgical expert) named Jim Kelly from Michigan began running tests. Much very valuable data came out of this. One outcome was the questioning of the use of "Stressproof" steel, or 1214, I forget which, by Bill Large. Much controversy. I documented two rifle failures, a Thompson Center and a Sharon, for the magazine myself.
I have pretty much all the "Reports" with the analytical data in my library. John Baird died five or six years ago and has since been elected to the NMLRA hall of fame.
"Ask me what time it is and I'll build you a watch."

Eggman
10-13-2010, 07:35 PM
A couple of comments relating back to the topic of black powder overload. The tests showed that adding more powder continuously raised breech pressure. The pressure readings keep getting higher and higher eventually reaching astronomical levels. Meanwhile, bullet velocity also increases, but not nearly so fast as the pressure. There are no exceptions to this principle. like for example, claiming that after 130 grains excess powder is simply expelled.
Most failures were due to short started balls - the ball not pushed all the way down to the powder, and then fired. The object of gunmakers is to build barrels that bulge, or ring, when this occurs. Improper steel often leads to catestrophic failure, fragmentation, the grenade effect.
Next gun you buy ask what steel is in it. Make the seller assure you that the steel is tough, not brittle. Get the steel number and look up its characteristics on the Internet. The Italian gunmakers have this science mastered.

Southron Sr.
10-14-2010, 04:48 PM
Then there was this article on the repro New Model 1859 Pedersoli Sharps that commented that it had a HUGE powder chamber. The idiot/author went on to explain that he shot it anyway!

He didn't know enough about percussion Sharps to realize that the stainless steel chamber sleeve was missing from the carbine!!!!

YUK! YUK! YUK!!!

DAVE FRANCE
10-14-2010, 09:52 PM
I think 1214 steel mentioned in one of the postings, is 12L14 steel. It has the advantage of being easy to machine, but it isn't very strong.

I know it is used for some muzzle loader barrels. But, I don't think it would be used for firearms that use smokeless powder. It probably is as strong as original CW era barrels. I am pretty sure it would not be used on high voume produced firearms.

I think the Bill Large barrels I have owned were 12L14.

I wouldn't want to fill a 12L14 barrel with black powder.

David

Eggman
10-15-2010, 10:43 AM
You're absolutely right on the 12L14. After the dust up Baird sort of took Large's side siting the fact that most Large barrels we're generally massive in thickness. However this was debatable when applied to the thinner musket barrels or whenever dove-tails for sights were cut in. Concerning the old time barrels, the "Buckskin Report" sited several U.S. and British army tests from the mid-Nineteenth Century atesting to the reliability of the steel from that era. In Civil War days a common term was "Spring Steel" -- it's stamped on my Burnside. The stuff today is not necessarily better, especially in the world of muzzle loading.

DAVE FRANCE
10-15-2010, 08:38 PM
On the subject of metals used in CW era guns.

I have an article I was given about materials used in Enfield and Springfield rifles. It was in a magazine for material enigneers (metallurgists primarily). It used terms to describe the materials that were used in both firearms. They were generally the same materials. I have had it for about 25 years.

A few years ago I bought a book about materials used in firearms and swords. Title is Fightin Iron ....... The author is Art Gogan. It describes how metals were made. Some of the terms describing materials used in the 19th century are misleading. For example: Some barrels are marked cast steel. Cast steel today means steel that is cast. Steel is very hard to cast because it has poor fluidity. Steel is cast today by special processes. A friend of mine I worked with at General Motors had two patents for casting methods. One was a process that forced metal upwards with a piston, into molds that were above the piston. And a vacuum was pulled at the top, to aid the metal flowing upward. I believe that cast stainless steel exhaust manifolds were made that way for GMs large block truck engines.

CW era steel parts were made from iron and then placed in a crucible to put carbon into the steel.

Some parts were made of iron but then case-hardened to form a steel layer a few thousandths thick.

I think that generally metal used in US firearms were adequate for the black powder pressures and would last for quite a while.

Some parts in modern repro firearms are not what we commonly call them. Two books I have read say that the 1866 Winchester receiver was made of gun metal. Bronze is copper and tin. Brass is copper and zinc. Gunmetal is copper plus zinc and tin. What we call brass is probably not copper and zinc; it probably is copper plus two or more additional metals.

Iron is probably not used in reproduction firearms. Probably only steel is used. Of course the cheapest steel is not much stronger than the wrought iron used in original guns. I read somewhere that iron is not made in any appreciable amount in the US. Steel is better even for parts that can be low strength.

I think that most reproduction barrels are made from steel, even for muzzle loaders.

I am not a metallurgist. I am relying on my poor memory, so there are probably some errors in what I have written here.

David

Southron Sr.
10-16-2010, 02:11 AM
Prior to the Civil War both Springfield and Harpers Ferry often used "Marshall Iron" to make gun barrels. Marshall Iron was made by the firm of that name and the company was located in England.

OF course, during the war, the vast majority of Union and Confederate musket barrels were made out of American iron or in some cases, in the North, steel.

Eggman
10-16-2010, 12:15 PM
On the "lighter" side, after several analytical pieces on gun metals were published in the "Buckskin Report," they received this missive from Bill Large. It is noteworthy that no one had mentioned his products in any shape or form up to this point. This is from the January 1982 issue:
"I've got 100,000 barrels out. Some 32-40 and 45-70: many slug and round ball barrels. My steel leads all others in North/South .58 shoots. Record bear taken in Alaska at 40 below zero. You will have to prove all you have done to to me and my family; I will not take such.
Cancel my "Report" and take my name from your Advisory Panel.
Return all my letters and pictures.
May the good Lord bless you and Thompson/Center. You have shown your colors and in my estimation made a plain ass out of the "Buckskin Report."
Makes some of the N-SSA spats seem kind of tame doesn't it.

DAVE FRANCE
10-16-2010, 04:39 PM
I didn't know anything about that spat about Bill Large Barrels. I have one that I am using that was made about 40 years ago. It is a great barrel, but I would not use very high loads of black powder or even consider using smokeless powder in it.

One book published years ago included muzzle velocities that included loads for black powder guns, started at loads of 100 grains of black powder. I am relying on my memory, because I threw the book away.

David

DAVE FRANCE
10-16-2010, 06:33 PM
Another example of bad information from magazines.

Some magazines and books publish information about targets fired to determine the accuracy from a particular bullet design, bullet diameter, lube, primer, powder type, powder charge, etc.

The American Rifleman magazine does a good job of this kind of testing. The magazine shows the minimum and maximum 5 shot group sizes and the standard deviation for a total of five, five-shot groups. Frequently the largest group size is twice as large as the smallest group size. And five groups is not enough to get statistically signifcant results. Seven tests would be much better. If seven tests were done the difference between the smallest and largest group sizes would probably increase.

When The American Rifleman used to show the group size for each five shot group, five tests of several brands of ammunition sometimes showed surprising results. I remember test results that were published in AR in which five types of ammuntion were tesed; let's call them A thru E. Brand A had the smallest average or mean group size. But the largest single group of the total of 25, was for Brand A. The writer said something like, that's why we use a statistical testing method. Which was the best thing to say.

I did a lot of testing of ammunition while an Engineer in the Army during the late sixies. It was not small arms ammunition. I think 30 rounds was the minimum test. If I did a test one week and did another a month later, the results were always somewhat different.

I also did testing of other things (primarily airbags) later. Airbag tests were very expensive both in money and manpowder. But, the auto company I worked for did many tests to make sure they enough testing to be sure the airbags were going to be reliable.

If you test a 3 shot group and then shoot 2 more rounds into the group it will probably get bigger.

It is the same testing 5 shot groups and 10 shots.

Bench rest shooters and other shooters know that statistics is important in evaluating ammunition and firearms for accuracy.

Some writers test a few rounds and then try to understand why one type of ammunition (type A) he thinks will be best, turns out to be less accurate than another type B. If the writer did 7 five shot groups for type A and 7 for type B, and if Type A had the smallest mean group size and the smallest standard deviation (unless there was a very large difference in mean group sizes) some Type A groups would probably be larger than Type B groups.

If someone tests different changes to ammunition for one rifle, and tests each one by one five shot group, the shooter will probably not find the difference with any confidence. For example, if a shooter tests the following for his Henry ammunition:

increasing the bullet diameter by o.oo1 inches in diameter.
changing the lube
changing the bullet hardness
changing the length and weight of the bullet
changing the size the case is sized at (to better fit the chamber size)
changing the type of primer used
changing to a more precise type of bullet seating die
changine the case neck inside diameter for higher neck tension
changing how the case is crimped

Any of these changes might slightly help the accuracy of the ammunition, but each improvement would probably be very small unless the ammunition tested before the changes was very poor quality. Bench rest shooters evaluate a lot more things than listed here.

If the all the changes together would improve the average group size from 1.5 inches at 50 yards, to 1.0 inches, that would be a very big change. But, unless the ammunition tested before the changes was very bad, tests comparing one change at a time to find small changes would require a lot of testing to find the small improvement. A one five-shot group to another five-shot group comparison for each, would be almost worthless.

So writers who draw conclusions from limited testing are just filling up the pages with misleading information. Some of the writers for Varmint, and Bench Rest shooters do a better job.

I'm sure there are some members of the N-SSA who can back me up on this.

I'm looking forward to hearing your comments.

David

Eggman
10-16-2010, 08:25 PM
Will do some digging and see if I can come up with some of this stuff.

DAVE FRANCE
10-19-2010, 07:22 PM
MORE ABOUT SOME GUN TESTS YOU MAY SEE IN MAGAZINES AND BOOKS

Several years ago the NRA reported testing of cast bullet handloads for the 45 ACP round in the NRA Cast Bullets publication (page 31). The author of the article, Alton S. Dinan, Jr., made the following statement in the article: “The average shooter cannot tell good information from poor, only good from very bad”. He explained that error in testing results used for the article largely eliminated shooter error and gun error by using a machine rest for the tests. In the NRA publication, the test comparison results comparisons between any two complimentary tests are generally very close, because of removing gun error and shooter error.

There were a total 17 separate tests done. Each test consisted of three 10-shot targets. The results for each test were summarized with a 30-shot test composite group size and an average 10-shot target size.

An example of the comparison tests follows: Two sets of tests can be used to compare the results of Test 3 (a 4.0 gr powder charge) to the results of Test 5 (a 3.6 gr charge). The set of tests of a charge difference between Test 3 and Test 5, was repeated in two additional tests with the same charge difference. A set of Tests (14 and 16) were identical to Tests 3 and 5 except for the addition of using bullets which were sized by less than one thousandth of an inch compared to a heavier sizing for Tests 3 and 5. Tests 14 and 16 provided another 30 tests of the 3.6 gr charge compared to the 4.0 grain charge.

By clever use of what is commonly called design of experiments the testing greatly improved the accuracy of the test results from the testing, and most tests were used for evaluating more than one factor in the ammunition. In the tests series discussed here, a comparison between heavy sizing of the cast bullets and lighter sizing, was done by comparison of 4 30-shot series of tests with light sizing to 4 30-shot series of heavy sizing. That means a total 8 30 round tests were done to compare heavy to light sizing, but the same tests were used for other comparisons. The NRA didn't do the amount of testing performed for the 45 ACP cast bullet because they wanted to fill up space. I am sure it was done in an effort to furnish information that is reliable.

My only point in this posting is to show that results shown in magazines which compare one or two 5-shot targets for one ammunition test to one or two for another is very inadequate. There is a lot of math involved in the science of testing to get meaningul results. In some magazines the results you see are not something you can count on being reliable.

David

DAVE FRANCE
10-24-2010, 04:38 PM
More about testing firearms and comparing target results.

There is a good discussion of the effect of error sources on group size in testing rifle accuracy in RIFLE ACCURACY FACTS (RAF) by Harold R. Vaughn. (He is the proverbial rocket scientist – a very intelligent man and a WW2 fighter pilot.) RAF is available from the NRA.

Many scientists and engineers have to understand statistics to plan tests and understand the results. The following is a quote from RAF:

We need to talk about the statistics involved in shooting. Most people think that if you have a ballistic system error (rifle) that has two error sources and you eliminate one of the errors, the resulting dispersion will result will be reduced by the amount of the eliminated error. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and depending on the number sources …the resulting dispersion will usually be reduced by a much smaller amount. The total dispersion is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual error sources.

Total Error = the square root of ( A squared + B squared + C squared + ……)

The following is my own words, but the example that follows is very similar to one in RAF.



SOURCE ERROR GROUP SIZE
A 0.500 1.15
B 0.500 1.03
C 0.500 0.90
D 0.300 0.851
E 0.050 0.850
HUMAN AND OTHER 0.850 0.00

Suppose you have a rifle that shoots an average group size of 1.25 inches. (The 1.25 would only be found by several tests.) And, you test five sources of error. Three reduce dispersion by 0.5 inches, one reduces dispersion by 0.30 inches, and one by 0.05 inches. To us, the term dispersion means group size.

Note a ½ inch error only reduces the group size by about 0.10 inches. An error of 0.05 inches only reduces the group size by 0.001 inches.

The group size numbers predicted are probably not what will be measured on the first attempt. The numbers are the mean group size that would be determined by a large number of tests.


If you started with an average group size of 1.25 inches, with the errors shown above, you would still end up with a group size of 0.85, unless you could eliminate the human error and other sources of error you can’t eliminate. The chart was made by entering 0.85 as error source.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ALL THIS?

There is nothing in this work that says you can’t make an ammunition and rifle combination very accurate.

Well, if you expect to get a big change in average group size, from one change, it will be very hard to reliably find how much change there is. Notice from the chart, three changes of ½ inch should only reduce the group size from 1.25 inches to 0.90 inches.

Here are some words of wisdom about bench rest target sizes I heard somewhere a long time ago.

Small groups due to luck usually don’t repeat. If you think one small group tells you how well your rifle shoots, you are probably wrong.

Large groups repeat most of the time.

Large groups with a large standard deviation (most of the shots are not near the center) always repeat.

If you shoot small groups with a small deviation you are a good bench shooter and have a good rifle. Some people can do that.

David

Ron/The Old Reb
10-25-2010, 08:14 PM
WOW
After reading all that I remembered why I gave up bench rest shooting, about forty years ago. To much work and frustration.

DAVE FRANCE
10-25-2010, 09:40 PM
Ron,

You have a very good point. I have never shot a lot of bench rest targets. Most of the years I have been in the N-SSA I didn't shoot any. Its boring.

I have the same idea about bench rest competition. From what I have read, the rifle would have to represent a lot of work and investment.

David

Eggman
10-25-2010, 09:52 PM
Well back to GBQ "gun barrel quality" steels - from "The Buckskin Report," Feb., 1982, author James Kelly, metals failure expert. Excellent steels in 1982 included GBQ 1137, 1119, 4130, and quenched and annealed 4140. Not recommended - 12L14 and Stressproof. The latter are "resulphurized, leaded, cold drawn steels" designed for easy machinability, not for shock loading. The four preferred steels listed are very tough, reliable product that tend to bulge when improper loading induces failure. The other two have diplayed a tendency to detonate. Roundballers have always had a strong preference for very deep cut rifling in their barrels to better grip their patched round balls. For economic sake some barrel makers tended toward the easy machining steels.
Original Civil War guns were wrought iron or "cast steel," a "hot rolled product similar to our current mild steel" (Kelly). Even today both are considered superior to 12L14 and Stressproof.
It is prudent for every skirmisher to know exactly what steel is present next to his or her head.

R. McAuley 3014V
10-26-2010, 12:12 AM
As for Brannen’s reference to Marshall steel, refers to Marshall’s works near Birmingham, England. Although the process of barrel rolling was first entertained by Roswell Lee, about 1810, it was another decade before he engaged Henry Burden to design and erect a rolling mill in 1828-29. Armory managers at Springfield made another attempt to weld barrels with rolls in 1850, using machinery built by the Ames Company of Chicopee, but in 1851 this effort was abandoned. Later experience suggests that the failure may have been due to a lack of suitable iron rather than a deficiency in the machinery. The British committee that visited Springfield in 1854 described the system of forging barrels by trip hammer then in use as inferior to the rolling mill method used in England.

The Ordnance Department received reports on the English method of welding barrels in rolls from Major Hagner in 1848, Major Mordecai in 1856, and from J.T. Ames in 1857. In 1858, Armory superintendent James Whitney retained Ames to acquire an English rolling mill and 50 tons of iron to use with it. By November 1858 the equipment was in operation and Whitney reported that only one of the first hundred barrels made by the new process had failed in proof. The barrel rolling process depended on use of suitable iron. In 1858, there was only one source of this iron, Marshall’s works near Birmingham, England, from which the Armory made repeated orders.

Colt’s 1861 Special Model and Remington’s Model 1863 ‘Harpers Ferry pattern’ rifle (aka Zouave Rifle) have barrels stamped with the word “STEEL” but while they are made of “cast steel,” which is simply another name for ‘crucible steel,’ they were made from an ingot of homogenous steel rather than of being “cast” in any pattern mold as some modern processes permit.

Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon; it may contain other ingredients and is then usually called “alloy steel.” Prior to the Twentieth Century, the term “steel” was usually reserved for metal of sufficient high carbon content to be hardened by quenching and tempering. Before 1865 many different kinds of steel made by different processes were in use and the descriptive terminology used in the records of the national armories is quite complex.

“Natural Steel” is steel made in a bloomery directly from iron ore. It was the earliest form of steel made in the West but was not much used until the late Eighteenth Century.

“Blister steel” is made by prolonged heating of bars of wrought iron sealed in boxes containing coal, a process called ‘converting.’ The iron is carburized by this treatment; bars have higher carbon content on the outside than inside and contain the slag inclusions that were present in the wrought iron used for conversion. This steel takes its name from the blisters that form on the outside of the converted bars due to the release of gas within the iron during conversion.

“German steel” was made from the Seventeenth Century onwards in Styria and Carinthia by refining high-manganese pig iron in a finery. It contains alternating bands of high and low carbon content and was considered a superior material for cutlery.

“Shear steel” is made from bars of blister steel that have been cut up, bundled together and welded. It contains bands of different carbon contents and was also commonly called “German steel” even though made in England. If the process of cutting, bundling, and welding were repeated, the product is called “double shear steel.”

“Crucible steel,” also known as cast steel, is made by melting blister steel in a clay crucible and casting into an ingot mold. It is homogeneous and free of slag inclusions, when properly made.

All of the above types of steel were produced in small quantities and were much more expensive than iron. After 1865 once large-scale steel production by the Bessemer and open hearth processes began, the price of steel gradually decreased. The crucible process remained in use throughout the nineteenth century for production of the better grades of tool steel, Belgian gunmakers expanded the grades of steel to include: ACIER FONDU “half-hard carbon steel;” ACIER MI-DUR or “medium hard” steel and ACIER DUR “high hard carbon steel” or “ingot-steel,” while ACIER DOUX means “soft or low carbon steel or ingot steel;” ACIER BESSEMER refers to “Bessemer Steel” while ACIER AU CREUSET means “crucible steel or cast steel.” So if you should ever come across a Belgian-made Lefaucheux revolver that bears only the words ACIER FONDU, it is not the maker’s name but rather the steel alloy composition.

Before 1873 the Military Storekeepers and Paymaster purchased blister and German steel from agents who obtained their supplies abroad from the earliest period of Armory musket manufacture. Armory managers preferred German steel from Germany until 1830, but thereafter ordered most German steel from England. In 1831, for example, Springfield Armory ordered 18,000 pounds of double shear steel and 1200 pounds of “English 4 blister steel” from Sheffield makers.

Cast steel was first used at Springfield in 1842 for bayonet blades, ramrods, and springs. In the period between 1848 and 1853, Armory managers changed the main and band springs, tumbler and sear from shear to cast steel, and then found these parts to be more nearly free of seams and cracks. The proportion of cast, relative to blister or shear steel, used at Springfield Armory continued to increase, and by 1850 the well-known Sheffield crucible steel makers Naylor & Co and Jessops were the chief suppliers of steel.

In 1852 the Armory purchased 63,000 pounds of cast steel and only 650 pounds of shear steel. Compared to other American industries that needed high quality steel for their products, the Springfield Armory was slow to adopt crucible steel: the nearby Collins Company, for example, used English cast steel for their axe bits from 1826 onwards and were, in fact, one of the largest American customers for Sheffield cast steel. Prior to 1865 the only parts made of steel in the lock of the 1822-pattern musket was the face of the battery and the springs. There were unsuccessful experiments with steel tumblers in 1832; a lock filer broke two steel tumblers in assembling four locks, and three of the tumblers cracked in hardening. The tumbler, sear, and springs in the lock of the M1842 musket were made of steel, and in 1850 the Armory bought 2,500 pounds of cast steel for tumblers. Steel lock parts in the M1855 rifle and rifle musket are the tumbler, lock swivel, feeding finger, cover catch, sear, and all springs.

Remington began to use steel barrels in 1846, and was followed by the Whitney Armory and Simeon North in 1848. All Colt revolver parts were English cast steel. The Ordnance Department’s opposition to steel barrels was such that when Eli Whitney proposed to use steel barrels in the contract rifles for the Army in 1862 he was refused permission to proceed. Experiments with welded steel barrels began at Springfield in 1866, but steel barrels were not adopted until 1873. The first Armory steel barrels were made from a solid bar drilled and rolled into an elongated tube, rather than by welding a skelp. The Model 1873 rifle was made using 5.8 pounds of iron and 9.5 pounds of steel.

Ron/The Old Reb
10-26-2010, 09:04 AM
[quote="DAVE FRANCE"]

"the rifle would have to represent a lot of work and investment."

The same can be said of skirmishing. But it's more fun.

DAVE FRANCE
10-26-2010, 11:27 AM
Eggman,

Did any barrels burst when used with black powder?

I started Cowboy Action Shooting recently. I am changing how I hand load to speed up making cartridges with black powder. I use a filler to help compress the powder charge. It would save me time to not add the filler, but I do it because there are several reports (with pictures) of pistols that blew up reportedly because the black powder charge was not compressed at all.

At very close ranges compressing the powder probably isn't necessary for revolver ammunition. I think people and companies that load revolver ammunition with smokeless powder do not compress the powder.

I would appreciate anybody telling what they know about this!

David

Greg Ogdan, 11444
10-26-2010, 02:11 PM
Dave,
It is common with many of the oldest pistol calibers that, when loaded with smokless, not only is the powder not compressed, but there is ample room for a double charge of smokeless. Such is the case with .45 long Colt. As far as BP loads for cowboy, always better to compress.

DAVE FRANCE
10-26-2010, 06:10 PM
Greg,

I compress the 45-Colt black powder cartridge rounds I load now, but I was hoping someone would have convincing information that for low loads in revolvers compressing is not necessary. I bought a Ruger Vaquero in 357 mag. I think I will use shorter cases and load an amount of powder that gives some compression.

I can size and deprime on one small press. Then prime with a hand primer. I do that so I can make sure it is done safely.


On a progrssive press.

First I can expand at one station.

Put powder in at the second station.

Use a third station to check powder is in the case. (RCBS has a powder checker for that.)

Seat at the fourth station.

Crimp at the fifth.

Greg Ogdan, 11444
10-27-2010, 08:42 AM
Dave,
You "might" be avle to get by since you are shooting the Ruger. I think the smarter idea though, is as you said, to shorten the cases. I have a friend that shoots SASS and he is using Cimmaron .44's. He trims his cases down to .44 Russian length. Seems to work real well for him since he is one of the top shooters in the region.

John Holland
10-27-2010, 06:50 PM
I guess the bottom line was they spread themselves too thin. They first expanded to a second magazine - "Black Powder Cartridge Rifles," and when this met with limited success, they folded it into the "Buckskin Report" and changed the name of the latter to "The Blackpowder Report." Of course the hard core buckskinners objected to this and membership began to sag. Then John Baird retired and that was the final straw. The magazine folded in the late 80s.
Anyway at its peak the "Buckskin Report" was hell bent for leather after "junk" guns and began documenting failures. Then a guy (metalurgical expert) named Jim Kelly from Michigan began running tests. Much very valuable data came out of this. One outcome was the questioning of the use of "Stressproof" steel, or 1214, I forget which, by Bill Large. Much controversy. I documented two rifle failures, a Thompson Center and a Sharon, for the magazine myself.
I have pretty much all the "Reports" with the analytical data in my library. John Baird died five or six years ago and has since been elected to the NMLRA hall of fame.
"Ask me what time it is and I'll build you a watch."

I'm sorry, but I have an entirely different memory of the Buckskin Report, and what happened to it, and it wasn't because they were spread too thin. I was one of their early subscribers, and I was also one of the first subscribers to the Black Powder Cartridge Rifles magazine. The mistake that John Baird made was to take on the big arms manufacturers by declaring publicly that their products were unsafe. John Baird was told by many of his friends and followers that he was on a path of self destruction, but he wouldn't listen to good advice. They broke him financially in litigation and court costs. Yes, I remember the specific company, and no I'm not going to name them! He then retired from running the operation and turned the magazine over to his son, who ran it into the ground very quickly.

I still have my cancelled check to them for a 2 year renewal, plus a T-shirt, to help support their effort to stay in business. The hard feelings I harbor is that the son folded the publication in bankruptcy before he received my check, which he then cashed and kept rather than send it back to me.

That's the way I remember it.
Sincerely,
John Holland
N-SSA 48 years
NMLRA Life member
NRA Benefactor Life Member
Etc.

Eggman
10-31-2010, 03:55 PM
I'm not sure that what you wrote about the "Buckskin Report" is all that different than what I wrote. Had Baird kept his focus on the "Buckskin Report" and not branched into cartridge rifles and the like, I think his chances of surviving would have been much better despite the litigation. The IMPORTANT bottom line - Baird most certainly has saved many fingers, eyes, and possibly lives with his costly campaign to make black powder rifles safer. Sorry about you losing your subscription money
The burst guns I surveyed were loaded with standard (if you consider 70 grains standard) loads of black powder only. Kelly investigated a whole string of failures - again all loaded with black powder only.
I just met a man in Orlando who now has his grandfather's muzzleloader. He doesn't know what kind it is but he says he has the "Pellets and stuff" and has a "book." We spent some time talking - as best I could I emphasized the importance of seating the ball or bullet, he doesn't know which he has, on the powder.

DAVE FRANCE
10-31-2010, 05:46 PM
I worry about safety, not so much for myself but for other people. A few months ago a neighbor of mine told me about an accident that happened to someone in his family. I don't want to describe it because he might not want it described for others to see.

It occurred to me that if he had known about safely with primers the accident would not have happened. I didn't say anything about it to him.

I want to say this briefly.

1) Use a safe priming tool. The online Lee hand primer instructions say the number of primers and the brands of primers used should follow their instructions. If you aren't willing to do that, get another Primer tool that can safely handle any brand and handle large numbers at one time. I know RCBS tools provide a gate between the primer and case that prevents primers in the reservoir (or whatever) from exploding if the primer being seated in the case explodes. Primers can be fed to the case in an upside down position or two primers can be fed to the case on top of each other.

2) Hand primer tools do not necessarily seat the primer safely so it is not a high primer. I don't think any primer tool does.
When priming, a rod pushes up on a spring, the spring pushes on the rod that seats the primer. If the primer handle is compressed all the way, that does not mean the primer is not high. If something keeps the primer from seating correctly, you can still compress the handle all the way by compressing the spring enough.

3) Primer pockets of new brass should be uniformed. It greatly reduces the chance of a high primer. Nothing but a uniformer or swage will provide a safe pocket that can guarantee enough room for the primer to seat. You can also use the uniformer to clean out the bases of used cases.

4) If you set the primed case down after priming the case, you should look at the primer, rub your finger nail across it, and set the primed case on a flat surface. tip the case off vertical as you set it down, and as it tips up to vertical it will wobble back and forth a few times if the primer is not high. If the primer is high, it will not look the same. You should be able to see the difference.

Don't just look at the primer in the case.

These safety steps should not slow you down, except for uniforming each new case one time.

Be safe!

David