|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 29, 2013 5:41:45 GMT -8
My superman comment was because I m a meer mortal and Murphy's law would have it that if I tried something on my own it wouldn't go well. Actually combine that with the inexperience and I guess that is what happens. I am glad there are people like you guys that are out there with the knowledge so the development of new rounds can happen and so guys like me can use your data as guidelines to use these rounds. Thank you Brian
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jul 29, 2013 9:57:35 GMT -8
My superman comment was because I m a meer mortal and Murphy's law would have it that if I tried something on my own it wouldn't go well. Actually combine that with the inexperience and I guess that is what happens. I am glad there are people like you guys that are out there with the knowledge so the development of new rounds can happen and so guys like me can use your data as guidelines to use these rounds. Thank you Brian With the advent of the internet information is spread so quickly. The biggest issue I have with that is that grabbing a single fact and then making assumptions from that one fact can get dangerous PDQ. Then when that assumption is passed on as safe therein lies the danger. Not everything is directly transferable from one cartridge to another. One may have certain attributes like taking XXX pressures while another may stretch more or less than a similar case but when you neck up or down things change. The mere step of changing the shoulder angle can alter the performance of the round in several areas. Wildcatting involves moving shoulders, necking up and down, swaging, turning on a lathe, shortening and of course fire forming. Loading is a evaluation of similar cases but that can be a challenge with a new design thanks to all the cumulative changes designed in. Powder levels aren't just picked because the case will hold it. Anyone that says he is going to load heavier because the case will hold it and is not looking at the total picture is an idiot looking to hurt himself and others. Looking at cartridge performance the comparison velocities of similar capacity in a good start. When you start seeing numbers bettering bigger cases with less powder you know pressure is at work. If you have a 308 out running a 30-06 you better be looking at why. Are you seating deep and raising pressures? Are you using powders that are not a good burn rate choice? Is it a fast powderer that is a bomb waiting to happen? Are you getting huge pressures by compressing the powder when you shouldn't? Did you throat it long or short? Many variables come in. About the time you have a catastrophic case failure you will be wearing the fruits of your thoughtless and irrational loading practices as scar tissue on various parts of your body. Computer models have been designed that really help but they are just models. So many things happen when those crunched numbers are taken as gospel. I will go on record and say that when I see chart after chat on a cartridge to support a given premise or assumption I look very hard. Often it is an attempt to dazzle the less than knowledgeable and convince us, like the President, that if you say it enough it must be truth. I don't mind a few in the ballistics area but when a guy starts picking and choosing using apples to compare to their oranges in that area I consider that to be disingenuous and the argument and presentation to be completely fallacious. Testing of a new design should be done directly by at least two sources that have a root understanding of what the cartridge is designed to do. If it is designed to fill a niche the niche has to be identified. We all make them up but in reality there is usually one out there that already works. Wild claims about superiority in ballistics and efficiency should be looked at closely. I want to see groups shot not just a couple of holes. I want to see statistically relevant data that uses more than two or three data points for evaluation. I also like to see loads revisited under different environmental conditions. I feel parallel testing by the participants should be done with one shooting the other loads of the other. Rifles are like women. Same basic parts but they have totally different personalities. To be successful the data must be transferable from one to the other. That approach is what happens in cartridge development at BHW. A single loading and testing will not get the stamp of approval. I reference the 6X68 load being done commercially by Tactical Ammunition. That load was developed by BHW through the firing of hundreds of rounds. It is producing sub-MOA on rifle after rifle. I just had two last weekend turn in some great ones with that load. Thoughtful and cautious case design and load development go hand in hand. Recognizing how bullet shape and bearing surface of long and uber-short necks interact is important. Knowing that a shoulder pushed back loses volume and one moved forward gets more but that doesn't defy the laws of physics. An 2% gain in volume will not give you a 10% increase in speed. Conversely if you get higher velocities with less volume say about 10% you cannot gain it back in velocity unless you are in the red line of the case AO or way overloaded. Another thing on shoulder movement is there is no need to waste boiler room but if you have to shove a bullet deep in neck you gain little and if you must stabilize a bullet through excessive crimp or neck tension you aren't doing something right. Lots of thought and lots of money go into a successful or not so successful wildcat. Chamber drawings reveal design flaws, idiosyncrasies of the platform and even brass availability and variation all come into play. Just some rambling thoughts like Crusader Rabbit. Since I have the grandson today I am pecking at this as the morning progresses. Greg
|
|
|
Post by Babaganoush on Jul 29, 2013 11:15:35 GMT -8
Greg,
Your ramblings are always welcome, considering the caliber of your previous posting.
David
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jul 29, 2013 11:46:33 GMT -8
Greg, Your ramblings are always welcome, considering the caliber of your previous posting. David Thank you David. I appreciate the compliment. Greg
|
|
|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 29, 2013 15:58:28 GMT -8
I agree and that is why I do not attempt to go off chart on anything that I load. I admit I don't know what to look for in the different aspects of building a cartridge that is new. Frankly it scares the hell out of me when guys are loading with a Lee dipper And don't even own a scale and to top it off just wanta powder to load with. The information that you know didn't just come to you in a dream. And I know you didn't just learn the hard way, so did you have someone that taught you what they knew combined with reading,along with seeing the effects while shooting while changing individual aspects. I don't think I will probably not have the time to learn all that would be needed to develop a new cartridge. I do on the other hand like the ability to take a common round and adapt it to serve a different purpose even if I already have something that will fill the same purpose. It is always an excuse to replace my one gun. Anyhow, thank you for sharing the knowledge you have learned over the years of enjoying the shooting sports.
|
|
|
Post by Babaganoush on Jul 29, 2013 16:35:55 GMT -8
Frankly it scares the hell out of me when guys are loading with a Lee dipper And don't even own a scale and to top it off just wanta powder to load with. You mean there are actually people out there who use those things??? Holy Smoke! And here I thought they were there for measuring "pinches" of various spices.
|
|
|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 29, 2013 17:10:46 GMT -8
I know there is no way I would use those. I would rather buy my ammo than load with that equipment.
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jul 29, 2013 19:03:13 GMT -8
I agree and that is why I do not attempt to go off chart on anything that I load. I admit I don't know what to look for in the different aspects of building a cartridge that is new. Frankly it scares the hell out of me when guys are loading with a Lee dipper And don't even own a scale and to top it off just wanta powder to load with. The information that you know didn't just come to you in a dream. And I know you didn't just learn the hard way, so did you have someone that taught you what they knew combined with reading,along with seeing the effects while shooting while changing individual aspects. I don't think I will probably not have the time to learn all that would be needed to develop a new cartridge. I do on the other hand like the ability to take a common round and adapt it to serve a different purpose even if I already have something that will fill the same purpose. It is always an excuse to replace my one gun. Anyhow, thank you for sharing the knowledge you have learned over the years of enjoying the shooting sports. I started loading when I started competing in1976. I learned 80% by hands on experience. Shooting far in excess of 20, 000 rounds a year in practice and matches tended to give me a test bed. I learned maybe 15% from reading and then applied much of that to actual usage on the competition arena and game fields. The remaining 5% I gleaned from others. I have picked up small nuggets of knowledge from others as I spent time comparing notes and experiences with other competitors. I have been blessed with having four or five nationally known gunsmiths as close friends so have learned a lot about what makes a superior firearm for the task at hand. The back and forth of using their guns for competition in national level matches paid off in spades over the years. Custom guns being built for me gave me a chance to input my ideas on my equipment. I never followed the crowd on my gear. I had and have some of the most unique and cutting edge innovations that ever got brought to the line. Some of the stuff you see used today was in my hot little hands decades before it became common place. Dual optics, integral mag wells, non-223 match guns and short shells were my contribution to IPSC. I had guys with the tools and I would spend the time and money to make it happen. Many of the old guys learned that way. There was no internet or mentors handing out knowledge by the bucket full. The important thing is to surround yourself with innovators and experienced knowledgeable people. Getting grounded and learning the basic principles will go far to establish your path. I always felt the competition that I participate in has given me a unique perspective on shooting. My professional life let me teach many aspects of shooting to various levels of experience and talent. I have always felt that passing on what one learns is a mandate we should all follow. Don't drag your feet in learning. Get in there and read, talk and participate. Loading and wildcatting are like soup and sandwich. They just go together. Greg
|
|
|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 29, 2013 20:01:34 GMT -8
I wish I could spend more time learning about it, instead I have been learning AutoCAD revit for the past 5 hours tonight. I was a carpenter and I got hurt and can't climb on ladders all day so I am working at a gun shop and going to school so I can have time and the money to play. For some reason I have become infatuated with the versatility of the AR platform. Hopefully the government won't be able to do anything else to restrict what we can do with them. It seams as if everything has settled down a little more lately so only time will tell on that.
|
|
|
Post by jarv442 on Jul 30, 2013 6:44:26 GMT -8
Things may look like they have settled down but you can count on them to be working on back door politics to restrict our rights. We should still be writing every one we can to keep the pressure on them, numbers are the only things that matter to them. We can enough people contacting them while there seems to be a lull in the storm and when they look at th numbers it will be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. OK now off my soapbox I would like to look at the other end of the spectrum and get a barrel going in the new .17 super magnum. There isn't even a rifle for sale yet,Savag was supposed to get one out soon. If we can get a barrel for it we would be the only ones with it. Here is the specs from SAMMI on it. www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/newSpecs/17%20Win%20Super%20Mag%20SAAMI%20C&C%20Drawing%20ver%202013-02-15.pdf I am not sure what the problems would be opening a .22 bolt face up from .288 to the .341 of the .17 SM or a .22 mag face from .302. And the rim thickness is .066(.071 max)compared to .050(.056 max)on the mag and .043(.051)for the regular 22's. I am not sure existing bolts can be worked or a new bolt has to be fabricated but I think this round should be made available for the AR platform and whoever does it first will have a leg up over everyone else since they would be the only game in town. Lets get this moving and see if this barrel can be had before the other guys get theirs out.
|
|
|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 30, 2013 11:43:04 GMT -8
Things may look like they have settled down but you can count on them to be working on back door politics to restrict our rights. We should still be writing every one we can to keep the pressure on them, numbers are the only things that matter to them. We can enough people contacting them while there seems to be a lull in the storm and when they look at th numbers it will be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. OK now off my soapbox I would like to look at the other end of the spectrum and get a barrel going in the new .17 super magnum. There isn't even a rifle for sale yet,Savag was supposed to get one out soon. If we can get a barrel for it we would be the only ones with it. Here is the specs from SAMMI on it. www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/newSpecs/17%20Win%20Super%20Mag%20SAAMI%20C&C%20Drawing%20ver%202013-02-15.pdf I am not sure what the problems would be opening a .22 bolt face up from .288 to the .341 of the .17 SM or a .22 mag face from .302. And the rim thickness is .066(.071 max)compared to .050(.056 max)on the mag and .043(.051)for the regular 22's. I am not sure existing bolts can be worked or a new bolt has to be fabricated but I think this round should be made available for the AR platform and whoever does it first will have a leg up over everyone else since they would be the only game in town. Lets get this moving and see if this barrel can be had before the other guys get theirs out. I have a feeling that round would be a lot of the same problems ad the 17 hmr. I have heard even the Alexander arms guns have problems.
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jul 30, 2013 12:01:12 GMT -8
Things may look like they have settled down but you can count on them to be working on back door politics to restrict our rights. We should still be writing every one we can to keep the pressure on them, numbers are the only things that matter to them. We can enough people contacting them while there seems to be a lull in the storm and when they look at th numbers it will be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. OK now off my soapbox I would like to look at the other end of the spectrum and get a barrel going in the new .17 super magnum. There isn't even a rifle for sale yet,Savag was supposed to get one out soon. If we can get a barrel for it we would be the only ones with it. Here is the specs from SAMMI on it. www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/newSpecs/17%20Win%20Super%20Mag%20SAAMI%20C&C%20Drawing%20ver%202013-02-15.pdf I am not sure what the problems would be opening a .22 bolt face up from .288 to the .341 of the .17 SM or a .22 mag face from .302. And the rim thickness is .066(.071 max)compared to .050(.056 max)on the mag and .043(.051)for the regular 22's. I am not sure existing bolts can be worked or a new bolt has to be fabricated but I think this round should be made available for the AR platform and whoever does it first will have a leg up over everyone else since they would be the only game in town. Lets get this moving and see if this barrel can be had before the other guys get theirs out. It is a rimfire. That means the twist rate is different than the big boys. Lots of dollars there. Limited demand by aftermarket shooter swould be a problem. The 17 barrels are not easy to make consistently and that is why they charge a premium for them. There will have to be a dedicated conversion like the Ceiner available. Not likely to happen for a round that you can't get ammo for. If they don't make enough .22 I doubt this one will get much machine time. There wil be dedicated rilfes built no doubt but I don't think the AR will be one of them. I haven't seen any 22 Magnum or 17 HMR's being produced yet in volume. They are all close knock off toys. I bet this one is the same way. Personally I am rimfired out with a 22 mag and for the current prices and availablity I can ALMOST load 223. Just my thoughts. And personal opiniuon. Not speaking for BHW at all on this one. Greg
|
|
|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 30, 2013 12:24:39 GMT -8
I can say that the Alexander is not produced in volume. When I ordered it for my customer they said 9-10 weeks, it was over 9 months before it showed up. The 50 bewolf we ordered for another customer the same day,3 weeks and it was at our door. That was a year ago but what they kept telling us was " waiting on barrels". I don't have any clue what the equipment or running costs are, but hell it might be worth it to dedicate a machine to 17 with the hornet, supermag, Remington , hmrAnd all the other other 17's out there. Somebody can't keep up. Just what I think about it. Brian
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jul 30, 2013 18:44:08 GMT -8
Great idea but no one can keep up with mainstream chamberings at this time. Dedicating a machine to marginal demand items does not make economic sense if you can sell 20 223's for every 17 whatever at the current time a smart guy follows the money. I finally got a 17/223 last year on a whim. Neat little round but the 20 is as small as I want to go. I have five 20's and only want one more. I even thought about the HM2 but came to my senses. LOL
Greg
|
|
|
Post by lkrbuilder13 on Jul 30, 2013 19:57:59 GMT -8
Great idea but no one can keep up with mainstream chamberings at this time. Dedicating a machine to marginal demand items does not make economic sense if you can sell 20 223's for every 17 whatever at the current time a smart guy follows the money. I finally got a 17/223 last year on a whim. Neat little round but the 20 is as small as I want to go. I have five 20's and only want one more. I even thought about the HM2 but came to my senses. LOL Greg What is your favorite 20? I have stuck a 20 practical in the back of my mind for a feature build but haven't dug into it too much. The use of 223 brass, bcg, and mags are tempting as well. I have a 204 in a bolt gun but haven't even found time to shoot it to see how it shoots. I had a tc barrel in 204 and that was fun but I got tired of not having a repeater. The hm2 is an odd duck now as far as factory guns now. I know you can convert a 10/22 to one without much trouble but I would assume you.had a gun in mind when you were thinking of it. One of the guns I would like to find without paying an arm and leg for is a 10/22 magnum, but those bring good money for a cheap gun.
|
|