275 MH's with H4350

[Deleted]

After reading on the Bad Bull Muzzle Loader website about the loads they used, I had to try it out

They use a 275 MH with 140 grains of IMR4350 and get ~3100 fps with a LRM primer that's sealed

..I used a 275 MH with 120 grains of H4350 and got 3089 fps with a 209 primer, a .041 bushing and 15/64" primer flame channel. No primer bulge, but a little snug when removing with 1 finger.

I got roughly the same velocity with 20 grains less powder. Maybe the H4350 burns a lot different than IMR4350?

I wonder what their velocities are when they use 115, 120 or 125 grains of 4350 in their LRM Bad Bull muzzle loaders?

I wonder what their velocities are with a much slower burning powder like H4831 or IMR 4831 with 300 or 325 MH's?...

As soon as I get some more 275 MH's, I'll try the same load with IMR4350. If I can find some.

I'll try the loads with LRM's in my guns too

Gun data:
Savage T/A .451 ~ 29" of barrel if front of the lug

Magnetospeed V3 chronograph

[Deleted]

What is there ignition system flash hole size.?...there was one or two badbull guys on here for awhile...probably check back when season kicks in....

[Deleted]

Thanks for the testing/comparisons. Very interesting..

[Deleted]

Did you shoot for groups or velocities? If you still shot for groups was it not worth mentioning?

[jims]

Always interesting reading.

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2014 21:43:54 GMT -5 @78riverrat said:

Did you shoot for groups or velocities? If you still shot for groups was it not worth mentioning?

Just shot for velocities since those were the last 3 - 275 MH's I had.

H4350 with 275 MH
115 grains 2978 fps
120 grains 3089 fps
125 grains 3154 fps

All on the Magnetospeed V3 Chronograph

They made a 1 1/4" group if that helps. Straight up.

[cowhunter]

Groovy shooting and neat reporting. I could never figure out how BD Bull shoots so much powder. It sounds like a Rempac can use less powder for a similar speed. Big E: what kind of loading pressure are you using with this new ignition setup? Is it true that even a relatively light loading pressure will still result in good ignition?

[7mmfreak]

MTJ555 has one; he is on every now an again but is out of the country for a couple more months. I want to say when I chrono'd his gun with 140gr of IMR4350 it was right around 3100fps (3115fps is what sticks in my head but I didn't keep notes as it isn't my gun) with a 275BE. I can't give you any other data because he has never shot more or less than that charge.

[longrange]

This has me wondering about reloder 17. It has a similar burn rate as 4350 but with more velocity. I use RL-17 in my 300 wsm.

[Dave W]

Aug 27, 2014 21:19:39 GMT -5 @sml said:

What is there ignition system flash hole size.?...there was one or two badbull guys on here for awhile...probably check back when season kicks in....

.055

Always enjoy reading about your testing E.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 0:03:15 GMT -5 cowhunter said:

Groovy shooting and neat reporting. I could never figure out how BD Bull shoots so much powder. It sounds like a Rempac can use less powder for a similar speed. Big E: what kind of loading pressure are you using with this new ignition setup? Is it true that even a relatively light loading pressure will still result in good ignition?

When shooting these loads, and on all the loads I shoot for accuracy, I use a 1-2 hand loading pressure.

The .040" bushing plug with the bigger primer flame channel will ignite IMR4831 in a .45 SML when the bullet is rattling loose in the barrel and with no seating pressure.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 6:49:29 GMT -5 Dave W said:

Aug 27, 2014 21:19:39 GMT -5 @sml said:

What is there ignition system flash hole size.?...there was one or two badbull guys on here for awhile...probably check back when season kicks in....

.055

Always enjoy reading about your testing E.

So the surface area of a .055" hole is .002375 Sq. inches
...The surface area of a .041" hole is .001320 Sq. inches.

The LRM .055" vent hole on the BB is 79% bigger than the .041" vent hole in my 209 primer bushing plug.

But with my 209 primers, it takes me 20 grains less 4350 powder to get the same velocity? And the BB LRM vent hole is 79% bigger?

What about the LRM guns that have a ~.040" vent hole? The BB vent hole is 79% bigger than those guns out there.

So will the BB muzzle loader, which has a sealed primer module and a .055" vent hole, ignite a slow burning powder like 4350, better than the LRM guns with a ~.040" vent hole?

Anybody have any experience with igniting slow burning powders (4350, 4831) with there LRM ignition systems with 275-325, or heavier, grain bullets in their .45 cal. SMLs?

[dannoboone]

Aug 28, 2014 4:46:33 GMT -5 longrange said:

This has me wondering about reloder 17. It has a similar burn rate as 4350 but with more velocity. I use RL-17 in my 300 wsm.

Have wondered the same thing. Have used it in 7mmWSM,
.243, .25-06 and tried it in a .22-250. Seems like it
does best with the mid-to-heavier-for-caliber-bullets,
but don't know if that would translate to SML.?.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 17:45:17 GMT -5 Earnhardt said:

So the surface area of a .055" hole is .002375 Sq. inches
...The surface area of a .041" hole is .001320 Sq. inches.

The LRM .055" vent hole on the BB is 79% bigger than the .041" vent hole in my 209 primer bushing plug.

But with my 209 primers, it takes me 20 grains less 4350 powder to get the same velocity? And the BB LRM vent hole is 79% bigger?

What about the LRM guns that have a ~.040" vent hole? The BB vent hole is 79% bigger than those guns out there.

So will the BB muzzle loader, which has a sealed primer module and a .055" vent hole, ignite a slow burning powder like 4350, better than the LRM guns with a ~.040" vent hole?

Anybody have any experience with igniting slow burning powders (4350, 4831) with there LRM ignition systems with 275-325, or heavier, grain bullets in their .45 cal. SMLs?

So know we know a .055 is useable and accurate since badbull is using it......Are you scratching your head yet,lol...?
 

Its getting to be if you can find a suitable burn rate powder that wont fall into the breech plug is doable if blowback is totally contained....

[7mmmag]

I have wondered about the slower burn rate of the 4350 and 4831 . I think with longer barrel length these slower powders might be one good option. I have learned as most I would suspect that powders do not light the same ! I also would like to test with some of these powders as soon as some bullets come available. Are load programs some what accurate in coming up with loads, I don't have one and was wanting to know they work ?

If one would have to pick between a 275 mh @ 3050 fps or 300 mh @ 2900 for shooting game at distance ??

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 19:22:16 GMT -5 @sml said:

Aug 28, 2014 17:45:17 GMT -5 Earnhardt said:

So the surface area of a .055" hole is .002375 Sq. inches
...The surface area of a .041" hole is .001320 Sq. inches.

The LRM .055" vent hole on the BB is 79% bigger than the .041" vent hole in my 209 primer bushing plug.

But with my 209 primers, it takes me 20 grains less 4350 powder to get the same velocity? And the BB LRM vent hole is 79% bigger?

What about the LRM guns that have a ~.040" vent hole? The BB vent hole is 79% bigger than those guns out there.

So will the BB muzzle loader, which has a sealed primer module and a .055" vent hole, ignite a slow burning powder like 4350, better than the LRM guns with a ~.040" vent hole?

Anybody have any experience with igniting slow burning powders (4350, 4831) with there LRM ignition systems with 275-325, or heavier, grain bullets in their .45 cal. SMLs?

So know we know a .055 is useable and accurate since badbull is using it......Are you scratching your head yet,lol...?
 

Its getting to be if you can find a suitable burn rate powder that wont fall into the breech plug is doable if blowback is totally contained....

First off, who deleted the ..."are you scratching your head yet"... post?

I just wish you'd be man enough to have left it up. Was it you Alan? or sml or greenhorn?

In the above post I'm asking questions that I know some of the LRM guys won't or can't answer.

Secondly, what the heck does your question have to do with anything I'm talking about?

[Deleted]

I'm scratching my head as others about the .055 vent size....who would have thought that was conceivable...no need to freak out dude...
You have been the Man in development here so Kudos to you... I'M leaving it up..."Are you scratching your head yet""""

Before Jeff got on board and show us how .040 works imo you would have never gone there....He is gonna be using your bushing in his ignition.....Its ALL good my friend....

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 20:22:27 GMT -5 @sml said:

I'm scratching my head as others about the .055 vent size....who would have thought that was conceivable...no need to freak out dude...
You have been the Man in development here so Kudos to you... I'M leaving it up..."Are you scratching your head yet""""

First of all, Alan, I owe you an apology.
Sorry, for biting your head off.
It took your post the wrong way.

Secondly, I don't think I'm scratching my head anymore on the topic of LRM's when it comes to slow powders, "lighter bullets", and pressure starved loads. Whether it's a .45 or 416

I don't/can't believe I'm the only one who's compared 209's and LRM's in the same gun with the same loads.

I don't believe I'm the only one who has seen the LRM's cause pressure starving with slower burning powders in our SMLs

There has to be someone out there who has info on slower burning powders with LRM's.

The Swinglock guys are at the pinnacle of SML's when it comes to heavy bullets with slow powders and LRM ignition. But they are using heavy bullets with the slow powders.

And the ignition system on the Swinglocks are different than ours.

cowhunter has a Swinglock, but his is a 209 gun. And now my velocities are approaching his with minimal primer bulging due to the .040 bushing and the bigger flame channels.

These other LRM guys shouldn't have a problem with pressure starving when they increase the weight of the bullets, or add a booster powder. (blaspheme, I know)


So once again, sml, I apologize for tearing ya a new one.

[Deleted]

Its all good ...One thing I noticed about I4198 with h4198 was the air space ....If you have a slower burner with bigger granules imo the ignition will have deeper penetration into the load thus more efficient burn....off the top of my head...

[airborneike]

Josh,

Today was the first time in a while that I had time to actually shoot my own ML and was trying the LRM vs 209. You and I have talked about this privately. I'm pretty hardheaded and for a long time thought that LRM primers were the best for ML.

Regurgitated the same old "209s aren't made to shoot at pressure" themes that is supposed to be common knowledge. My set up is different than most but the problems are the same and what I am beginning to see with my rig is that the 209s are giving me better ignition and a small edge in accuracy. No where near Jeff's .127 group but not bad.

I used the .040 vent you gave me and it seems to be what I needed...thanks.

I guess an "old dog" can learn new tricks if he will keep an open mind!

Will do more testing to be sure.

Stay safe Josh

Mike

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 22:21:59 GMT -5 airborneike said:

Josh,

Today was the first time in a while that I had time to actually shoot my own ML and was trying the LRM vs 209. You and I have talked about this privately. I'm pretty hardheaded and for a long time thought that LRM primers were the best for ML.

Regurgitated the same old "209s aren't made to shoot at pressure" themes that is supposed to be common knowledge. My set up is different than most but the problems are the same and what I am beginning to see with my rig is that the 209s are giving me better ignition and a small edge in accuracy. No where near Jeff's .127 group but not bad.

I used the .040 vent you gave me and it seems to be what I needed...thanks.

I guess an "old dog" can learn new tricks if he will keep an open mind!

Will do more testing to be sure.

Stay safe Josh

Mike

Cool! That's great Mike!
I'm glad it worked out for you.
One of the things that really got my going on the .040" bushings with the bigger flame channels was the Swinglock guns.
Those guys are shooting monster loads with their .416....with 209 primers! I couldn't figure out why at first... hell I started going in the wrong direction at first with .016" -.020" bushings with a booster. It worked, but not like the Swinglocks did.

I really like the .040" bushings with bigger flame channels a lot better.

Josh

[Deleted]

I've got to give credit where credit is due here.

First off, along with the Swinglock 209 guns, the 2 LRM vs. 209 primer tests that myers and cowhunter did, sparked an idea about the amount of pressure a 209 primer creates vs a LRM.

Myers initially said his test probably wasn't worth the time...wrong!

And cowhunter launching bullets into cardboards boxes in his bathroom with primers as propellant?! Dude, I love it!

But mostly the ideas came from me asking Ken Ross (rossman) a ton of questions about primers, gases and the temps they give off.

Ken was the one who schooled me on how much pressure a 209 primer actually creates.

But Ken told me that the most important part of a 209 primer might be the metals or flyings in the primer gases.

So I think it's the combination of the high pressure the 209 primer and the hot metal flyings that aid in the ignition of the slow powder loads. By adding pressure to the slow burning powder load via the gases from the 209 primers. And shooting the metals into the powder load with that high pressure from the 209 primer.

So thanks Ken, for taking the time to teach us.

[jims]

Ken is quite the resource of knowledge and good information.

[Deleted]

What? the breathing computer? you've got to be kidding! LOL

the testing Josh has done is one example of the pioneering spirit found here on this board, stay safe and thanks for sharing.........

[Dave W]

Have to give you credit Josh for your dedication!

You may or may not remember Tom saying the 209 handled 70kpsi with no bulging in his system, so that argument that the 209 couldn't withstand high pressure never really held water with me. In our non-fully supported system I wasn't so sure it was possible to do what you are doing given the issues you had at the beginning but you are opening new doors for all of us. Keep up the good work.