Posts by DOK
1 - 14 of 27 Posts
Well, since no one has any suggestions, I will respond to myself by listing today's shooting results using a 360gr. LBT with gas check. All of the loads gave good accuracy and very, very minimal leading. The first figure is the W296 weight and the next five figures are the velocity with the last figure being the extreme spread:
22.5 1310, 1299, 1291, 1311, 1295, 20
23.0 1375, 1367, 1366, 1371, 1388, 22
23.5 1400, 1407, 1400, 1399, 1407, 8
24.0 1453, 1412, 1457, 1452, 1425, 45
24.5 1449, 1470, 1458, 1469, 1465, 21
25.0 1468, 1459, 1472, 1470, 1462, 13
I used CCI primers and new Winchester brass that I trimmed to the same length. The revolver is a Taurus Raging Bull .454 with a 6.5" barrel. Based on the excellent article "Max Loads and Handguns" by Marshall Stanton on 3/20/01, the 23.5 grs. of W296 appears to be the "peak efficiency" load.
22.5 1310, 1299, 1291, 1311, 1295, 20
23.0 1375, 1367, 1366, 1371, 1388, 22
23.5 1400, 1407, 1400, 1399, 1407, 8
24.0 1453, 1412, 1457, 1452, 1425, 45
24.5 1449, 1470, 1458, 1469, 1465, 21
25.0 1468, 1459, 1472, 1470, 1462, 13
I used CCI primers and new Winchester brass that I trimmed to the same length. The revolver is a Taurus Raging Bull .454 with a 6.5" barrel. Based on the excellent article "Max Loads and Handguns" by Marshall Stanton on 3/20/01, the 23.5 grs. of W296 appears to be the "peak efficiency" load.
Southpaw,
I only had one initial problem that disappeared with usage -- the cylinder to barrel gap was tight and after about 10 rounds, the cylinder started to bind. I've seen other comments for other RB shooters that they had the same problem. But the good news is that the problem no longer exists and I can say the darn revolver shoots better than I have a right to expect. The only existing problem is that at 5'5", my hands are small and if I hold the gun so my finger is on the trigger in the proper position, I have the back of the grip slightly off center. After about umpteen rounds, my thumb feels like it has really been abused. If I hold the grip appropriately and put the tip of my finger on the trigger, the recoil, while strong, doesn't affect me too much. Simply said, it's not a recreational plinking gun, but manageable. In answer to your question of .454 max loads, I would strongly suggest that if you haven't, you should read Mr. Stanton's article on "Max Loads and Handguns" on this web site. You'll note that his predictions are right on, that is as I continued to add powder, I reached a point where the increase was minimal -- the increase from 24.5grs to 25.0 grs. was only 4fps (1462avg. to 1466agv). And at a slightly lower level (23.5gr.) my extreme spread was in single digits. As Mr. Stanton says in his article, a 10% increase in powder can translate into a 20% increase in pressure -- so I concluded the 23.5gr. was the "best". I did just read in the new "American Handgunner" that John Taffin tested some new factory loads that use the same bullet that I used and they got 1535fps -- BUT, that was with a 10" barrel. So for my 6.5" barrel, based on my test, the 24.5gr. is the max stopping point and the 23.5 is the "best" stopping point. If I need more than that, the lion is just going to have to eat me!
Regards,
DOK
I only had one initial problem that disappeared with usage -- the cylinder to barrel gap was tight and after about 10 rounds, the cylinder started to bind. I've seen other comments for other RB shooters that they had the same problem. But the good news is that the problem no longer exists and I can say the darn revolver shoots better than I have a right to expect. The only existing problem is that at 5'5", my hands are small and if I hold the gun so my finger is on the trigger in the proper position, I have the back of the grip slightly off center. After about umpteen rounds, my thumb feels like it has really been abused. If I hold the grip appropriately and put the tip of my finger on the trigger, the recoil, while strong, doesn't affect me too much. Simply said, it's not a recreational plinking gun, but manageable. In answer to your question of .454 max loads, I would strongly suggest that if you haven't, you should read Mr. Stanton's article on "Max Loads and Handguns" on this web site. You'll note that his predictions are right on, that is as I continued to add powder, I reached a point where the increase was minimal -- the increase from 24.5grs to 25.0 grs. was only 4fps (1462avg. to 1466agv). And at a slightly lower level (23.5gr.) my extreme spread was in single digits. As Mr. Stanton says in his article, a 10% increase in powder can translate into a 20% increase in pressure -- so I concluded the 23.5gr. was the "best". I did just read in the new "American Handgunner" that John Taffin tested some new factory loads that use the same bullet that I used and they got 1535fps -- BUT, that was with a 10" barrel. So for my 6.5" barrel, based on my test, the 24.5gr. is the max stopping point and the 23.5 is the "best" stopping point. If I need more than that, the lion is just going to have to eat me!
Regards,
DOK
Big Bore,
Appreciate the heads-up and did review the Loadswap. However, have a small problem in that I can log-in to the shooter's forum but the "add load" repeatedly gave me an error "name/password not correct" -- will keep trying.
I must say, you FA handgunners are in a different league than me and my Taurus. Today's data appears to suggest I'd have to add a pound of powder to reach the velocities you are.
Anyway, appreciate the help.
DOK
Appreciate the heads-up and did review the Loadswap. However, have a small problem in that I can log-in to the shooter's forum but the "add load" repeatedly gave me an error "name/password not correct" -- will keep trying.
I must say, you FA handgunners are in a different league than me and my Taurus. Today's data appears to suggest I'd have to add a pound of powder to reach the velocities you are.
Anyway, appreciate the help.
DOK
Cal,
Appreciate the comment and you're correct about the "effective" length being affected by the muzzle break, but I should have been more detailed in my notes -- I subtracted the muzzle break length from my 8" barrel to arrive at the quoted 6.5".
DOK
Appreciate the comment and you're correct about the "effective" length being affected by the muzzle break, but I should have been more detailed in my notes -- I subtracted the muzzle break length from my 8" barrel to arrive at the quoted 6.5".
DOK
Southpaw,
I've always been pleased with the accuracy, but as you know, accuracy varies from individual gun to individual gun. I initially put a Burris 2X7 scope on it using a Taurus mount, but unfortunately, the scope rings worked loose (even thought I had used lock-tite) and you should see the metal on the scope mount that was sheared forward. At that time, I shot 1.5" at 50 yds, which is reasonable, but that was with factory ammo and I suspect handloads will do better. I noticed you sign as "Southpaw" -- I'm also left handed but I shoot right handed which is handy as there are times my shooting hand doesn't feel like writing very much
I was thinking about your previous question about recoil and I'm sure you already know that if you're shooting well, you will not notice the recoil nearly as much as when the new loads aren't working.
Wish you well with you new endeavor.
I've always been pleased with the accuracy, but as you know, accuracy varies from individual gun to individual gun. I initially put a Burris 2X7 scope on it using a Taurus mount, but unfortunately, the scope rings worked loose (even thought I had used lock-tite) and you should see the metal on the scope mount that was sheared forward. At that time, I shot 1.5" at 50 yds, which is reasonable, but that was with factory ammo and I suspect handloads will do better. I noticed you sign as "Southpaw" -- I'm also left handed but I shoot right handed which is handy as there are times my shooting hand doesn't feel like writing very much
I was thinking about your previous question about recoil and I'm sure you already know that if you're shooting well, you will not notice the recoil nearly as much as when the new loads aren't working.
Wish you well with you new endeavor.
Cal,
Sure appreciate the help and yes, it would appear I'm in the right neighborhood. I find it very interesting that my test showed peaked velocity at the 1470 level while the FA revolvers appear to continue to climb. I realize they can handle higher pressures and have tighter tolerances, but the contrast to my experience with the Taurus versus the data from the FA shooters is more significant than I would expect. I'm going to rerun the test, particularly the 24.5gr and 25.0gr. levels.
I have a custom five shot Ruger Bisley being developed and hopefully that will give me a good tool to use for comparisons.
Again, thanks for the information.
Sure appreciate the help and yes, it would appear I'm in the right neighborhood. I find it very interesting that my test showed peaked velocity at the 1470 level while the FA revolvers appear to continue to climb. I realize they can handle higher pressures and have tighter tolerances, but the contrast to my experience with the Taurus versus the data from the FA shooters is more significant than I would expect. I'm going to rerun the test, particularly the 24.5gr and 25.0gr. levels.
I have a custom five shot Ruger Bisley being developed and hopefully that will give me a good tool to use for comparisons.
Again, thanks for the information.
Southpaw and Cal,
1. I agree with the comment that ES is not an foolproof method of predicting accuracy -- just an indicator. My test I listed is an example in that the 25.0gr. was my most accurate, but the 23.5 was very close and I think represents the "peak efficiency" level I'll stick with.
I'll never forget the first time I used my Chrony and measured velocity, standard dev., ES, etc., with my "common sense" telling me that the smallest velocity spread would be my most accurate. I shot 10 different loads and the most accurate was 147fps ES and one of the least accurate was low double digits. Admittedly, there probably were "extenuating circumstances", but yes, the ES is an indicator / helper.
2. Barrel length and velocity - several articles I've read indicate 40/50fps lose for each inch, so I'm not surprised when I see what the 10" FA's get. But as Cal says in his reply, it isn't just the barrel length that is working for the FA shooters. And Cal is correct, the RB has a brake, not a mag-na-port type device and may well affect the velocity more than a typical couple slots in the barrel would. In any case, I'm fascinated with what the FA shooters are accomplishing, but I'm also satisfied with the 1470fps I'm getting.
I am remiss in not previously mentioning the only remaining RB issue, and that is the trigger pull weight and finding a gunsmith that tackles RB tuning. My trigger is 5.5lbs which is certainly heavier than what I would prefer. The two well known gunsmiths I work with are S&W and Ruger folks and have commented that they rarely get Taurus revolvers to work on. So if you know of someone with experience with RB action jobs, let me know.
Regards,
1. I agree with the comment that ES is not an foolproof method of predicting accuracy -- just an indicator. My test I listed is an example in that the 25.0gr. was my most accurate, but the 23.5 was very close and I think represents the "peak efficiency" level I'll stick with.
I'll never forget the first time I used my Chrony and measured velocity, standard dev., ES, etc., with my "common sense" telling me that the smallest velocity spread would be my most accurate. I shot 10 different loads and the most accurate was 147fps ES and one of the least accurate was low double digits. Admittedly, there probably were "extenuating circumstances", but yes, the ES is an indicator / helper.
2. Barrel length and velocity - several articles I've read indicate 40/50fps lose for each inch, so I'm not surprised when I see what the 10" FA's get. But as Cal says in his reply, it isn't just the barrel length that is working for the FA shooters. And Cal is correct, the RB has a brake, not a mag-na-port type device and may well affect the velocity more than a typical couple slots in the barrel would. In any case, I'm fascinated with what the FA shooters are accomplishing, but I'm also satisfied with the 1470fps I'm getting.
I am remiss in not previously mentioning the only remaining RB issue, and that is the trigger pull weight and finding a gunsmith that tackles RB tuning. My trigger is 5.5lbs which is certainly heavier than what I would prefer. The two well known gunsmiths I work with are S&W and Ruger folks and have commented that they rarely get Taurus revolvers to work on. So if you know of someone with experience with RB action jobs, let me know.
Regards,
Big Bore,
Enjoyed your note and can relate to the circumstances. A little like raising kids? I've had somewhat similiar surprises -- a .44 load in my S&W Master Hunter (6.5") ran 1350 and extracted easy while the same load in my S&W 29 (8.36") ran 1550 and extracted hard.
Don't know if you noticed, but I've added a new topic concerning the use of lil'gun in the .454 and am looking forward to experimenting with it, unfortunately I don't have any mechanism to verify the reduction in pressure indicated by the Hodgdon data.
Hope to continue to see your experiences with that hand cannon on future topics so I can smile and say, "That guy's is going to be called 'Lefty' if he keeps it up
Enjoyed your note and can relate to the circumstances. A little like raising kids? I've had somewhat similiar surprises -- a .44 load in my S&W Master Hunter (6.5") ran 1350 and extracted easy while the same load in my S&W 29 (8.36") ran 1550 and extracted hard.
Don't know if you noticed, but I've added a new topic concerning the use of lil'gun in the .454 and am looking forward to experimenting with it, unfortunately I don't have any mechanism to verify the reduction in pressure indicated by the Hodgdon data.
Hope to continue to see your experiences with that hand cannon on future topics so I can smile and say, "That guy's is going to be called 'Lefty' if he keeps it up
Southpaw,
You're correct, I'm may have confused the issue. Since Taurus uses a muzzle brake and not muzzle porting, I've never considered the brake as part of the barrel length. Similiar to the putting a muzzle brake on my 9.5" SRH, I would not count my new barrel length as 10.5".
But I agree with your point and should stick to "standard" nomenclature descriptions. I originally purchased the 8.375", but found a shorter revolver easier to carry in the field, so also purchased the 6.5" -- obviously shortening the RB barrel is rather difficult.
I'll use the 6.5" (Taurus definition) for the remaining Lil'gun tests I hope to finish tomorrow.
Appreciate the comment and will certainly take your advice. It might be helpful for those not familiar with the Taurus, for me to add a loadswap note about the 1" brake being integral to the Taurus barrel.
You're correct, I'm may have confused the issue. Since Taurus uses a muzzle brake and not muzzle porting, I've never considered the brake as part of the barrel length. Similiar to the putting a muzzle brake on my 9.5" SRH, I would not count my new barrel length as 10.5".
But I agree with your point and should stick to "standard" nomenclature descriptions. I originally purchased the 8.375", but found a shorter revolver easier to carry in the field, so also purchased the 6.5" -- obviously shortening the RB barrel is rather difficult
.I'll use the 6.5" (Taurus definition) for the remaining Lil'gun tests I hope to finish tomorrow.
Appreciate the comment and will certainly take your advice. It might be helpful for those not familiar with the Taurus, for me to add a loadswap note about the 1" brake being integral to the Taurus barrel.
Southpaw,
Test done with 8.375", again, sorry for the confusion. I should have accurately measured the muzzle break as Mr. Lambert has and I would have more accurately identified the barrel as 7". Future tests will be done with the 6.5" (including break) Taurus. I realize the results will vary, but I want to see what the 8 3/8" versus 6.5" variation will be.
I did notice the ES dropping back down from the 24.0 to 25.0 loads. I will rerun the exact W296 test to verify the initial results. Two results will be of particular interest to me when I retest W296 -- the ES for 24.0 and 25.0, and the 4fps increase from 24.5 to 25.0. Additionally, with the scope reinstalled, I can do a better job of judging the accuracy.
Today's test will be with the Lil'gun powder and the repeat test for W296 will be later in the week.
Thanks for the questions and I'll make a distinct effort to be more precise on the equipment used in the future.
Test done with 8.375", again, sorry for the confusion. I should have accurately measured the muzzle break as Mr. Lambert has and I would have more accurately identified the barrel as 7". Future tests will be done with the 6.5" (including break) Taurus. I realize the results will vary, but I want to see what the 8 3/8" versus 6.5" variation will be.
I did notice the ES dropping back down from the 24.0 to 25.0 loads. I will rerun the exact W296 test to verify the initial results. Two results will be of particular interest to me when I retest W296 -- the ES for 24.0 and 25.0, and the 4fps increase from 24.5 to 25.0. Additionally, with the scope reinstalled, I can do a better job of judging the accuracy.
Today's test will be with the Lil'gun powder and the repeat test for W296 will be later in the week.
Thanks for the questions and I'll make a distinct effort to be more precise on the equipment used in the future.
In today's test with Lil'gun (covered in separate post), I rediscovered another reason I took the scope off the RB. Even with the scope set as far back as the mount allows, the front of the scope is over the muzzle break. The glass isn't directly exposed, but the front end of the scope sure is dirty, and I can't think the muzzle blast does it any good. For the retest of W296 (tomorrow if weather permits), I'll use a Bushnell red dot and hope it holds up.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
This message is a follow-up to the previous note about removing the scope because of it's overlap with the muzzle break:
I add this message with a large amount of humility and embarrassment.
After the 5/22/01 test, I noticed the front end of the Burris scoped appeared dirty. No big surprise because the front end of the scope overlapped the muzzle brake, so I thought it best to take the scope off and use a shorter red dot scope. The scope glass was not directly exposed, but the scope appeared very dirty – well, it wasn’t dirty, it was bare metal. Obviously, the escaping gas removed the bluing. Fortunately, while the glass was very, very dirty, it did clean up unscratched. O.K, so I should have thought about the overlap beforehand, but the damage was done and it did offer a conversation item about my lack of smarts. While taking the scope off, I observed the mount metal immediately in front of the groves (that the Weaver type rings fit in) was sheared forward approximately ½”. This happened to me the first time I mounted the scope on a Taurus mount, but I assumed I had been negligent in monitoring the screw tightness. This time, I closely monitored the various screws, both on the rings and mount so didn’t suspect the problem has reoccurred. The screws (installed with blue grade locktite) were tight, but apparently either the male ring portion doesn’t fit sufficiently far down in the female mount grove or there is sufficient flux/movement in the arrangement (or both) allowing the scope to move forward. In any case, the end result is I’m shooting iron sights until I get a chance to have SSK install one of their T’*** mounts. And I have two scope mounts to demonstrate my lack of smarts and/or ability to catch on very quick. Fortunately, I do know enough to keep the gun pointed down range.
I add this message with a large amount of humility and embarrassment.
After the 5/22/01 test, I noticed the front end of the Burris scoped appeared dirty. No big surprise because the front end of the scope overlapped the muzzle brake, so I thought it best to take the scope off and use a shorter red dot scope. The scope glass was not directly exposed, but the scope appeared very dirty – well, it wasn’t dirty, it was bare metal. Obviously, the escaping gas removed the bluing. Fortunately, while the glass was very, very dirty, it did clean up unscratched. O.K, so I should have thought about the overlap beforehand, but the damage was done and it did offer a conversation item about my lack of smarts. While taking the scope off, I observed the mount metal immediately in front of the groves (that the Weaver type rings fit in) was sheared forward approximately ½”. This happened to me the first time I mounted the scope on a Taurus mount, but I assumed I had been negligent in monitoring the screw tightness. This time, I closely monitored the various screws, both on the rings and mount so didn’t suspect the problem has reoccurred. The screws (installed with blue grade locktite) were tight, but apparently either the male ring portion doesn’t fit sufficiently far down in the female mount grove or there is sufficient flux/movement in the arrangement (or both) allowing the scope to move forward. In any case, the end result is I’m shooting iron sights until I get a chance to have SSK install one of their T’*** mounts. And I have two scope mounts to demonstrate my lack of smarts and/or ability to catch on very quick. Fortunately, I do know enough to keep the gun pointed down range.
1 - 14 of 27 Posts
