Shooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,257 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Because technology and gun strength are constantly changing, this board allows almost unrestricted posting of technical information, much of which is unsuitable for any but advanced reloaders to attempt to work with. In order to protect the less experienced and less cautious persons from making unwarranted assumptions and thereby hurting themselves, we ask that all descriptions of Heavy and Extra Heavy loads and loads not published by a reputable source be preceded with the following caution. Please copy and paste it into your post.

CAUTION: This post discusses loads or load data that equals or exceeds published maximums for the cartridge(s) mentioned. Neither the writer, The Shooter's Forum, nor the staff of The Shooter's Forum assume any liability for damage or injury resulting from using this information. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DUPLICATE THE DESCRIBED LOADS without first working them up from a published safe starting level charge while watching for pressure signs. If you don't know how to do that, don't try.

For loads that have no published equivalent anywhere:

CAUTION: This post discusses experimental load suggestions that are not published anywhere, nor have they been properly tested for safety and may exceed published pressure maximums for the cartridge(s) mentioned. Neither the writer, The Shooter's Forum, nor the staff of The Shooter's Forum assume any liability for damage or injury resulting from using this information. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DUPLICATE THE DESCRIBED LOADS without first working them up while watching for pressure signs. If you don't know how to do that, don't try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
My Apology To All of You

I recently gave out my personal loading info for my 45 X 7.62x54R, which I use in a 45 Colt/ 410 Contender barrel. I obtained the actual load from my 1973 Lyman Cast Bullet Manual, and it was a cast bullet load for the 45/70 1873 Springfield, and not for the 444 Marlin. Its the mildest load for a 45/70, so I use it in my Contender where its still a relatively mild but extremely accurate load. BUT may not be the case with your own firearm. So I apologize for my mistake
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,257 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
You just need to learn to get indirect. For posting you can use a service that supplies a secondary IP's that is reported to sites you visit, so your actual remains unidentified except to the security service (Anonymizer is one such service, but there may well be others by now, as it's been around awhile). A free service for anonymizing your use of the Google search engine is Scroogle, which keeps Google from accumulating data on your search interests. Just download and install the scraper. Free. You can use a screen capture program like Snag-It to capture photos from your computer display while you view them, then saves them under a new name or in a different format. That drops any other data that was with the picture, such as date and time stamps or location if it were there. The lower resolution that results is actually more appropriate for computer sharing 99% of the time.

This is getting geeky and off topic, but I figure other shooters may be interested in using some of these kinds of services.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,645 Posts
There are days when I feel ignorant!
I enjoy discussing shooting and reloading and if I am hauled off someday for incorrect thought, I guess it will just have to happen.

The thought of a gps position embedded in your picture is thought provoking.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,257 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
It makes sense that the data could be useful if you happened to shoot a picture of a crime or an accident or just wanted to know where on the map you were standing when you took the photo. The phone I have now not only has GPS and compass functions built in, but has a level sensor that lets you play a pinball type game by tilting it very gently. Surprisingly sensitive. In combination, it knows what direction the camera was pointing and at what slope angle when you take a photo. Makes it possible to locate something you took a picture of pretty accurately. The newest smart pad/iPad type devices have two cameras built in for 3D stereoscopic image making, so range finding can't be far behind.

Fortunately, you can turn all that stuff off, too. Being tracked or doing tracking is still optional on mine, But turning the phone off is still pretty definitive, AFAIK. I don't think they've got passive tracking devices in them yet, but maybe I'm wrong. Even so, you have to be within a relatively short distance of those things for them to work.

All in all, the technology is useful, but clearly its development is far outpacing the development of a cultural philosophy of ethics for its use.

So, it's scary, but to put it in a shooting-related context, think what a terrific sight adjustment application you can write with all that technology! Point the thing up slope and together with Bryan Litz's measured bullet BC database, you'd know right where to dial the elevation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,863 Posts
I have not yet posted heavy and extra heavy load data that requires the use of the disclaimer in Post#1, so if I find a reasonably-priced polaroid camera at a garage sale I might buy it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cugeno and fred243

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Unclenick,
When in Black Powder loading is the disclaimer needed? From what I have read to date BP loads should have a Fill percentage fo 99 to over 100 percent (for compressed charges) of case net volume.
Which end fo the range would need the disclamer?

I do know Duplex loads and straight Smokeless Powder loads would need the Disclaimer for anything above basic Starting level charges or if someone is reporting REDUCED H-110 or W296 charges.

Best Regards,
Chev. William
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,257 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Good question. I suspect it would come up mainly in the context of muzzle loading rifles where you are not limited by a cartridge case as to how much powder you can put in. Recommending 3F where 2F or F is called for is another possibility. I don't have enough experience with BP to say more without researching it a bit.

The difficulty with muzzle loaders is, without cases there are few pressure signs available to study before safe pressure is exceeded. You can attach a strain gauge instrument and take a measurement. You can use a micrometer to measure the chamber expanding permanently by more than 0.1% (the strain result of what the British call proof stress, where we use 0.2% and call it yield stress), and then back off by a factor of two. I read somewhere that, in centuries past, BP cannon were proofed with double the design charge, and if that didn't stretch the gun more than 0.1%, it passed and the normal charge used thereafter. All in all, I think the strain gauge and slow work up is a more elegant solution.
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
23,987 Posts
IMHO - the blanket disclaimer policy should apply to ALL loading issues. As speculated, 2F, 3F, 4F, duplex, etc., all could be misunderstood and cause injury or firearm destruction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Unclenick and Kdub,
I guess I was not clear, or made an "assumption" in my question about Black Powder loads and use to 'Disclaimer'.

From my point of view I was asking about CARTRIDGE Black Powder only, BP and Smokeless Duplex, and straight Smokeless Powder Loads as that is what I am interested in.

1. What is the Maximum Compression for a given Black Powder charge?
1a. What is the Minimum Compression for a given Black Powder Charge?
2. What level of "fill" of black powder would require the 'Disclaimer' to be added?
3. Which Grades of BP would Require a 'Disclaimer' for Cartridge use?
4. Does that vary with the net volume of the case?
5. How does 'seating depth' of the bullet in the CARTRIDGE affect Black Powder loads?

These Questions come to mind due to the answers posted to date.

Example: I have loaded a .25ACP case with 4.5 Grains of 3fg Goex and seated the bullet initially to .840" overall length, which resulted in the case 'bulging and 'locking into the Shell Holder.

I then loaded the next trial at .850" Overall length with out the case bulging.
NOTE: this is the same 4.5 grain 3fg Goex Charge, 25ACP Cases and 50 Grain JRN Bullets.

Normal overall length for the .25ACP is about .900" (with Smokeless powders).

Would this load need the disclaimer?

What about a Grade 3 PTL Blank inserted in a 9/32"x.014"wall Brass tube swaged down to .276" diameter, trimmed to a "Case Length of 1.118", and using a 51 grain Lead Bullet to substitute for a ".25 Stevens RF"?

Best Regards,
Chev. William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
changes

My old Lyman Eloctronic scale went bad had used it for years. Purchased a new RCBS scale and pulled some bullets from rounds that were loaded with the Lyman and checked them with the RCBS and they are a full grain lighter with the RCBS. If you change anything double check what you are doing.
I always used an RCBS 5-10 balance scale, it came in my original rock chucker kit. I liked it so much that later on I bought 2 more through ebay. I found a similar condition with those newer scales compared to my old one. One was nearly 1 full grain different. So I bought a set of RCBS Deluxe Scale Check Weights 510.5 Grains, back in the day the price was $29.95 I see now they are nearly $50. Still a worthwhile investment because it removes all your questions about "those unknowns". Using those check weights I re-calibrated my new scales to read exactly what the check weights were. Now all is good in my world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
So much Invaluable information. I'm glad I read this. (It did say to read before posting)
I am NOT going to experiment!!! Just gonna follow the instructions. Which as a Newb to this is no better option.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
101 Posts
Because technology and gun strength are constantly changing, this board allows almost unrestricted posting of technical information, much of which is unsuitable for any but advanced reloaders to attempt to work with. In order to protect the less experienced and less cautious persons from making unwarranted assumptions and thereby hurting themselves, we ask that all descriptions of Heavy and Extra Heavy loads and loads not published by a reputable source be preceded with the following caution. Please copy and paste it into your post.

CAUTION: This post discusses loads or load data that equals or exceeds published maximums for the cartridge(s) mentioned. Neither the writer, The Shooter's Forum, nor the staff of The Shooter's Forum assume any liability for damage or injury resulting from using this information. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DUPLICATE THE DESCRIBED LOADS without first working them up from a published safe starting level charge while watching for pressure signs. If you don't know how to do that, don't try.
Am I missing something?
recoil junky said:
We moderators have had a "meeting" and decided that it's not such a good idea to make the claims you do with your 44-40 loads or promote such loads. Even though you start your threads with a disclaimer, some idjit is going to do the unthinkable and may hold Shooters Forum liable or try too.

What you do on your own isn't under "our" control, but "we" do have a say here.

Thank you for your support

RJ
 

·
Elk Whisperer (Super Moderator)
Joined
·
10,805 Posts
"Equals or exceeds maximum loads" from which manual? If you want "magnum" performance from a 44-40, get a 44 magnum. The brass is built for it.

RJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
From my reading over the past decades; the 44-40 or 44WCF started out in the Black Powder (BP) Era as a "Balloon" Style Center Fire Cartridge packed with about 40 grains of BP and a Lead Bullet of about 200 to 220 Grains weight developing something between 1200 and 1400 fps from a Full Length Rifle Barrel.

I know of no Accurate contemporary Pressure information on these combinations.

BP, Nitroglycerin, and Nitrocellulose are all Explosives, with the two latter having both more 'Brissiance' and more shock sensitivity than BP.
However; Long experience with BP has shown it can be used as a cartridge propellant.
Likewise; both Nitroglycerin and Nitrocellulose, when compounded with other Chemicals, can be uses as a cartridge propellant.

Modern case design and developments have given us the 'solid head' Extruded Brass Case of somewhat reduced propellant capacity and much greater supported Bursting strengths compared to the "Balloon" type Case construction.

Additionally; other Modern developments have Improved Accuracy of Pressure and Velocity measurements, including the ability to real time plot the cartridge pressure vs Time.
Velocity Measurement methods have improved to allow multiple instantaneous readings of Projectile velocity between Muzzle and target.

Today Commercial Cartridge Manufacturers seem to "download" these to Below their historic capabilities, perhaps out of caution for still existent firearms of the Early Era.

There are accounts of subsistence hunting from the BP era using the 44-40 or 44WCF in 1873 rifles to take Bison an Elk. Were these Hunts "Humane" by Modern Standards? Possibly not; but they did Feed the successful hunter and his family.
I doubt the "Modern Cartridge Loads" could duplicate these Kills.
I doubt anyone would Legally be allowed to try nowadays.
The Late John Kort appears to have started developing loads to duplicate historic performance numbers before his passing. I would like to see that work continued by someone with the Necessary Capabilities to properly document them.

Savvy Jack, why not just add the 'disclaimer text' to your Electronic Signature on this Forum?

Chev. William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,277 Posts
I'm not sure why the Moderators are leaning so heavy on one guy, but in this litigious world, full of numb-skulls who have to be warned to not stick their tongue in the Insinkerator, I suppose having some standardized warning about reloading data isn't a bad idea.

The thing is, I'm using some of the 44-40 data being presented, which was published by Ackley in one of his books and by others after him. When you consider how many Model 92 rifles were converted from 44-40 to 44 Rem Mag, after its introduction, one can't help but conclude the action is strong enough. Also, today's modern 44-40 brass is not of the balloon-head design and likely of a stronger alloy. At the very least, it is likely to be held to higher quality control standards.

The disclaimer is there, whether literal or implied, for ALL reloading data. Even the stuff published in good ol' fashioned books has the boiler-plate warning on it. I see a guy trying to make contributions that appeal to a relatively limited audience, and a relatively limited number of moderators are h***-bent on dissuading him. That's how it seems from my perspective, anyway.
 

·
Elk Whisperer (Super Moderator)
Joined
·
10,805 Posts
I quit posting load information a couple of years ago after I finally realized that even with disclaimers and wiggle words, it NEVER works for some people.
That's why.

What started as a polite, off the record request, has turned into a "The data suggests" or "This manual says" or "It's safe if you don't use balloon head cases" or "They reamed the same action to 44 magnum" or "Was published by Ackley" or "Today's brass is better" argument.

The "data" may suggest it, but I don't want to think that someone who has a less than stellar clone or their family heirloom in the caliber mentioned tries the suggested load(s) and it ends up like this.

https://www.shootersforum.com/attachments/big-bore-lever-guns/12203d1361827393-big-bore-black-shadow-444-blowen20rifel20005.jpg

Yes, it's a Marlin in 45-70 but the end result could still be the same.

RJ
 

·
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
Joined
·
23,987 Posts
broom jm -


Let's be clear on something. A "limited number" of Modrators didn't lean heavy on a member - the majority discussed this in our private forum and came to agreement that a word of caution should be given the member in a Private Message. The member then went public in the General Discussion forum (which is the wrong place to post on reloading matters) and was upset when it was redirected to the proper forum for discussion.


You probably will note that I often caution fellow members (especially new ones trolling for "accurate loads for my new rifle") not to place much credence in personal loadings listed on the internet. Rather, look up such in reliable loading manuals or websites displayed by the manufacturers of bullets/propellants. As often repeated - what works well in your firearm could be a potential bomb in someone else's.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,808 Posts
We try to do the right thing

Just to be clear, we Moderators did not pile on anyone, but did want to express some of our concerns and request some restraint when posting loading data that may be a bit hot for some firearms. It was presented in a private, professional and respectful manner. I agree with that course of action as outlined by the two previous posts by Board Moderators. We usually try to administer justice tempered with mercy. All the best...
Gil
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,314 Posts
Jack,

After due consideration, if you can point to MODERN, PRESSURE-TESTED load data for the .44-40, then we may well consider it. Use the example of 'Ruger-only' loads for the .45 Colt. Our usual bullet/powder sources went to the trouble of developing and testing that data specifically for the large-frame Rugers, T/Cs, and so on. Since it is out in print, then there is a second source for a reloader (and us) to check anything that appears on the forum. In addition, many of the modern .45 Colt loads are with 300gr. bullets and loaded to where they won't fit in an old SAA, anyway. That's how I load mine. Too long to fit in guns from the 1800s.

Don't cite Ackley as 'proof' that your loads are OK. For one thing, nothing he wrote was pressure tested by him. Second, components change over time and his stuff was published a LONG time ago.

If you buy a pressure trace, and get some data, then the issue can be revisited. The .44-40 is just a poor candidate to have data floating around when one of the rounds could end up in a handgun that was barely sufficient to contain black-powder pressures, from the dawn of modern metallurgy.

That's how I see it.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top