|
Post by triplese7en on Jan 25, 2015 21:05:20 GMT -5
I never acquired a taste for shooting 200 grains of powder. 2400 fps is terrific for those that desire 300 yard shots. But I can obtain 200 yard shots and only use 100 grains of powder doing so. 200 is my yardage limit anyways, in the neck of the forest I'm usually sitting in.
100 grains Schuetzen blackpowder FFF 200 grain Hornady SST sabot/bullet 50/40cal....... works fine for me, my Knight or T/C Omega inline.
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Jan 25, 2015 21:17:06 GMT -5
I never acquired a taste for shooting 200 grains of powder. 2400 fps is terrific for those that desire 300 yard shots. But I can obtain 200 yard shots and only use 100 grains of powder doing so. 200 is my yardage limit anyways, in the neck of the forest I'm usually sitting in. 100 grains Schuetzen blackpowder FFF 200 grain Hornady SST sabot/bullet 50/40cal....... works fine for me, my Knight or T/C Omega inline. What kind of velocity and energy does that load maintain at 200 yds?
|
|
|
Post by triplese7en on Jan 26, 2015 9:52:18 GMT -5
That particular bullet is designed to fly long and straight for a while, with correct circumstances inside our bore. There are so many variables to comprise long lengths using a little lesser powder charge. With a powder like Blackhorn, you better hsave a snug sabot/bullet, to maximize it's flight in the air.
My hunting partner used the load I described above at about 185 yards. Deer traveled about 20 yards. He told me he honed-in at the top of the back and it hit top shoulder area. So that's about a several inch drop..... fps obviously still up there.
We don't use speed chronos or anything. Just keep a reminder in our heads on what's written in threads/posts here, plus charts available at places like Precision ... prbullet.com.
This will be the first spring where I get more heavy into using the lighter 40 caliber bullets in my 50-cal rifle. I'll start with the 260 grain 50/40 and also use a 180 gr QT Polymer Tip in 50/40.
I use real black for soft recoil. Enjoy the soft recoil associated with the lighter sabot/bullets too. I still shoot the mad-dog 460 gr No Excuse conicals too. But my limit with those are 125 yards deer blinds using 70-75 grains of powder. They can be trusted further than that. But I haven't experimented with No Excuse long length shots. I suppose there would be 15 inch or-so drops at near 200 yards. FPS for both loads would still be plenty.... well over the required 700 or-so. Probably around 1000.
I am fine with the thought-process that we use this more primitive weapon in the way it was intended..... closer shots than our .270s / .300 WSM's. I have no desire to buy smokeless or wear shoulder bruises from shooting a range full of 200 powder grain shots.
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on Jan 26, 2015 12:00:48 GMT -5
If I were a betting man I'd guess it is under 1500fps, under 1000 ft-lbs, and about 10-12" of drop by 200yds with that 200gn bullet over that charge.
|
|
|
Post by 10ga on Jan 26, 2015 17:56:55 GMT -5
Don't have my calculator but with 209 ignition, and tight 200 gr. load over 100 gr. FFF powder I'm thinking it's 1800 or better. I know my 90 gr FFF under a 180 gives 1800 plus. Some other considerations but a SWAG should be close. I have been known to be very wrong when using the SWAG system soooo..... 10 ga
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Jan 26, 2015 18:24:39 GMT -5
A estimated velocity of 1800 fps and 200 grain bullet would drop 15" at 200 yds with1200 fps and 650 lbs energy. Definitely not a 200 yd load i want.
|
|
|
Post by triplese7en on Jan 26, 2015 18:30:05 GMT -5
A estimated velocity of 1800 fps and 200 grain bullet would drop 15" at 200 yds with1200 fps and 650 lbs energy. Definitely not a 200 yd load i want. I'm thinking it's less than that. I think I saw a chart over at Hornady for the SST. Somewhere around 1950 fps. Saw it either there or modernmuzzleoader forum or Precision. It's a top-tier flat-trajectory bullet (SST) and we both use the stronger FFF powder. I recall the shoulder blade and high lung damage from the deer. He said he aimed at the top of the back. That's less than 15" normally ..... right? Michigan whitetails aren't that big. No big deal anyways. Not going to get into a pizzing match over it. Lets move on.
|
|
|
Post by 7mmfreak on Jan 26, 2015 19:03:12 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a jerk but it's not a pissing contest when we are talking facts versus conjecture. That load could start out as fast as 2000fps and still get to 200yds with about what guys are saying. The bullet you mention is not super aerodynamic or flying real fast. The drop you are talking about is more characteristic of a CF rifle with a bullet with a .4 or higher BC G1.
|
|
|
Post by Alabama on Jan 26, 2015 21:08:26 GMT -5
The "top-tier" "flat trajectory " SST with 100 gr powder is traveling in the 18-1950 range at best. Dropping 20" + @ 200 yards with around 900+- ft energy. Plenty to kill a deer for a highly experienced shooter with no wind and probably a little luck. But in my opinion it's streching its limits.
|
|
|
Post by triplese7en on Jan 27, 2015 7:42:42 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a jerk but it's not a pissing contest when we are talking facts versus conjecture. That load could start out as fast as 2000fps and still get to 200yds with about what guys are saying. The bullet you mention is not super aerodynamic or flying real fast. The drop you are talking about is more characteristic of a CF rifle with a bullet with a .4 or higher BC G1. .... or it might not get there as you're saying. Specific data is required to get closer to the truth. Must be in-reference to said bullet - said powder - said primer choice....etc......lastly, said-circumstances existing inside that bore and weather/climate/altitude factors included. In other words, individual testing is required and I have never gone to that ML-testing arena / school. I never dropped out either. I just chose not to enroll. I'll be reading another thread here and if/when you have your precise measurements complete, PM me please. It'll be nice to folder some specific and accurate information on this. That way I'll pass it along to my hunting bud. I'm just not guaranteeing you, he will read it. Neither one of us unload a big box of tools near our hunting stands. We just remove ourselves from our vehicles, grab our MLs and walk into the woods to hunt or sight-in our guns. Then when we shoot a deer at a long distance, we measure our distance. Then the unlucky hunting partner will ask the lucky harvester what bullet and powder volume he used. You know!!!!.... things like that.
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 27, 2015 14:22:13 GMT -5
Sounds like it is a new Remington based his post above. The thread on my Ultimates is 11/16 X 16 if anyone knows what the New Remongton is, thanks, Ray I did not measure the threads on the new Remington breech plug, but looking at pictures that I have when it was last out, it appears to have 19-threads within a measured 3/4-inches, so it has a finer thread than your Johnston plug. Remington sent me an email, didn't specify thread size, but they noted the change to stronger thread design with an interference fit to protect against the erosion issues they saw when testing the Johnston breech plug. So it doesn't appear you can just swap out the two different plugs, without starting from scratch when threading the barrel for a breech plug. I have a spare, but left it at the shop, I'll get an accurate measurement first chance. Best
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 27, 2015 15:02:19 GMT -5
I might add another owner's experience about removing the breech plug from his personal RU rifle. I asked for permission, which was given, to copy and paste his experience.......... "I got the breechplug out of the Rem. UML! Or rather, the gunsmith at Williams Gunsight did. After soaking the breech with kroil for a week, I tried one last time with a 1/2 inch drive socket. No go. Even the 'smith had a little difficulty. He said the breechplug was coated with anti-sieze but was probably installed by a gorilla. The owners manual said to tighten it to 100 inch pounds. I'll just tighten it to "snug inch pounds". My advice to new Rem UML owners.....take out, or have the breechplug taken out BEFORE you fire the rifle. If you are comfortable with having a non-removable breechplug......more power to you. It will just make it harder to clean well. [But it bugged the living daylights out of me not being able to remove it.] For your info. the 5/16 deep well socket sold by Auto Zone has the right contour to get into the action and fit snugly over the nipple on the plug. The best part was that Williams didn't charge me to remove it! Warranty work they said. Today I am a happy man."Just noticed your friend's experience removing the breech plug. Not familiar with Auto Zone tools, but he would be dancing on thin ice if he does not torque the breech plug to 100-in/lb. Remington uses an anti-seize lubricant packaged and sold through Permatex that is Mil Spec #907E, which blends aluminum, copper, and graphite lubricants. Very good stuff. Permatex packages this stuff to be sold through NAPA as item #765-1674, which is where I get mine as I use it on lots of stuff. The threads are fairly fine on the new Remington breech plug, with a quality torque wrench, socket extension and a 6-point 5/16" deep thin walled socket, it torques to 100-in/lb and removes easier than breaking loose and torquing the angled action screw on a factory Ruger M77 Hawkeye rifle. You do not even need a vice, you can lay the rifle flat on a carpeted floor, lay your knee across the rifle butt stock, and break the breech plug loose, without much fuss. The last time I broke the new plug loose, I measured the torque required, as a comparison to Remington's design for the plug to break loose at 80-inch/lb, and it was correct. With good tools and proper technique, it is a simple procedure. It is surprisingly easy to reach 100-in/lbs with little effort. Your friend may run into some bad issues if he ignores torquing the breech plug to spec. If your friend does not need 8-ounces of the stuff, I believe Permatex sells it under their label carded in a 1-ounce tube as item #81343. Best
|
|
|
Post by mainous on Jan 27, 2015 16:35:12 GMT -5
Ok guys. As I stated in my first Friday post, I am concerned that the bolt on my Remington Ultimate is not closing tight enough against the face of the primer/primer holder. I purchased some yellow plastigauge (.009"-.020") today and stuck a piece to the face of a clean primer holder and closed the bolt. I removed the case and used the guide on the package to try to determine the clearance. I was disappointed to find that it was actually looser than the gauge could measure, meaning it was larger than .020". I need a sanity check on this one but it seems clear to me why I'm getting leakage and primer protrusion on once fired primer holders. Called Remington and they acknowledge that it should probably come back under warranty but I wasn't happy with the overall discussion I had with the support person. They indicated that Ahlman's in Minnesota may be the best place to send it for warranty work and gave me a contact number. Called Ahlman's and as soon as I stated what I had they indicated they had no experience with it. I would be interested to hear what the pros think acceptable bolt to primer holder tolerance should be. I saw at least one picture on the internet ( www.realguns.com/images/breechplugdetailsclean.jpg) showing a Remington Ultimate breech plug that looked like it may have a copper shim/gasket on the barrel sealing surface of the breech plug. Anyone else seeing that on theirs? Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Jeff
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 27, 2015 17:29:12 GMT -5
It is normal for primers to back out of the U.M.L. primed casings when fired. This is a function of the primer firing without the pressure of an internal powder charge parking the case head against the breech face; the main powder charge is on the other side of the breech plug.
Having bolt face head clearance would not be unusual, how much before being out of spec and in need of a head space correction, that would be a Remington issue to determine and correct if needed. Using a plastigauge is something that I am unsure would give you any accuracy in measurement. They are best used to measure between bearing surfaces, but the UML case is a cone that fits against a cone. Just running the bolt home on a new UML casing will likely crush the surface of the casing internal cone against the hard breech nipple. Running a strip across the case head probably would not give you any accuracy in measurement as the UML case internal cone may just give way. Maybe if the plastigauge could be applied to the nipple surface and then crushed between the two mating cones. But again, not sure if that would give you any meaningful measurement.
There is copper in the anti-seize lubricant on the breech plug.
|
|
|
Post by hankinsrfls on Jan 27, 2015 18:00:24 GMT -5
It is normal for primers to back out of the U.M.L. primed casings when fired. This is a function of the primer firing without the pressure of an internal powder charge parking the case head against the breech face; the main powder charge is on the other side of the breech plug. Having bolt face head clearance would not be unusual, how much before being out of spec and in need of a head space correction, that would be a Remington issue to determine and correct if needed. Using a plastigauge is something that I am unsure would give you any accuracy in measurement. They are best used to measure between bearing surfaces, but the UML case is a cone that fits against a cone. Just running the bolt home on a new UML casing will likely crush the surface of the casing internal cone against the hard breech nipple. Running a strip across the case head probably would not give you any accuracy in measurement as the UML case internal cone may just give way. Maybe if the plastigauge could be applied to the nipple surface and then crushed between the two mating cones. But again, not sure if that would give you any meaningful measurement. There is copper in the anti-seize lubricant on the breech plug. It is not normal for primers to back out of the cases in a muzzle loader or any other firearm.. This is caused from excessive headspace and that is the reason you're getting blowback.. Regardless of what Remington says.. This breech plug system will never be reliable, as the brass priming cases very to much and are impossible to manufacture constantly.. To get a good seal each case must be exactly the same. Not even a + or - .0005 on the case.. That's impossible to get... I just read this article www.realguns.com/articles/649.htm and you should all read it if you haven't already.. The guy that wrote it tried to be a funny guy, but I did not find his humor to be very funny really... He should have spent a few minutes reading what he wrote and corrected some of his mistakes before it went to the publisher.. Read it and see if you can find all his mistakes.. Also, the pictures of the popped out primers blow my mind,, that they would show these and say its ok for your rifle to do this.... Jeff Hankins..
|
|
|
Post by encore50a on Jan 27, 2015 18:06:26 GMT -5
Ok guys. As I stated in my first Friday post, I am concerned that the bolt on my Remington Ultimate is not closing tight enough against the face of the primer/primer holder..................to me why I'm getting leakage and primer protrusion on once fired primer holders................. . Thanks, Jeff The leakage that you mention, is that on the inside of the case?
|
|
|
Post by squeeze on Jan 27, 2015 18:30:26 GMT -5
just read that realguns article. The first sentence states hes not a muzzleloader guy, then he quickly goes on to prove that he is completely clueless. I gave up after the first paragraph and breezed over most. Just makes ya wonder....
|
|
|
Post by rkrobson on Jan 27, 2015 18:47:07 GMT -5
Mainous it sounds like a headspace issue. If your using the Remington Ultimate cases, they are on average .010 shorter than the Starline cases when measured on a new Ultimate breech plug, I bought some to try as Remington says they improved on the Starline case. This may help, but it would not satisfy me, as I want a tight fit. I would send it back or take it to a competent gunsmith, say Jeff Hankins, and take twenty cases, the shortest and longest by sizing on breech plug, and have issue corrected. I actually go through 500 cases and sort them by sizing on breechpug, but Iam knucklehead and don't like the blowback issue as it will eventually foul up your bolt face and chamber. MR. HANKINS is working on a replacement plug for the Ultimates, utilizing his system, as we speak, then we can all shoot Blackhorn to our hearts desire and not worry about mating of these cases to a soft nipple and not be dependent upon a case designed for some cowboy shooting magnum pistol cartridges. ps, I hope Jeff has his profile setting on for notification when his name is used, ha ha, Ray
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 27, 2015 21:41:23 GMT -5
It is normal for primers to back out of the U.M.L. primed casings when fired. This is a function of the primer firing without the pressure of an internal powder charge parking the case head against the breech face; the main powder charge is on the other side of the breech plug. Having bolt face head clearance would not be unusual, how much before being out of spec and in need of a head space correction, that would be a Remington issue to determine and correct if needed. Using a plastigauge is something that I am unsure would give you any accuracy in measurement. They are best used to measure between bearing surfaces, but the UML case is a cone that fits against a cone. Just running the bolt home on a new UML casing will likely crush the surface of the casing internal cone against the hard breech nipple. Running a strip across the case head probably would not give you any accuracy in measurement as the UML case internal cone may just give way. Maybe if the plastigauge could be applied to the nipple surface and then crushed between the two mating cones. But again, not sure if that would give you any meaningful measurement. There is copper in the anti-seize lubricant on the breech plug. It is not normal for primers to back out of the cases in a muzzle loader or any other firearm.. This is caused from excessive headspace and that is the reason you're getting blowback.. Jeff Hankins.. Jeff, with all due respect, all factory production bolt rifles have head clearance, not talking head space (two different things), but head clearance between the cartridge case base and the face of the bolt, to allow for dimensional tolerances in cases. When the cartridge is fired, the case expands in all directions, including toward the bolt face. The primer is always driven back into the bolt face, but with this particular UML ignition case and its breech plug, there is no internal powder charge within the case for it to be driven back along with the primer. Even when within spec for head space, the primer will be pushed back against the bolt face within the head clearance. It is physically impossible for the primer not to park itself against the bolt face, it will be backed out. So by not having an internal charge to park the casing against the bolt face along with the primer, it actually helps the seal. The primer is pushing against the firing pin and bolt face under ignition, which in turn pushes the casing forward against the nipple. Now his particular rifle may indeed have excessive head space and excessive head clearance if a new UML casing is failing the very first time it is chambered and fired. Remington most certainly should measure the head space on that rifle to determine if that is out of spec. I'd also not rule out a bad lot of UML casings. But I'd not throw the baby out with the bath water, there are too many of these rifles out there that are within spec for head space, while having head clearance, that are shooting factory UML casings for the number of re-primes Remington recommends, without failure.
|
|
|
Post by hankinsrfls on Jan 27, 2015 22:04:44 GMT -5
Your head clearance should be no more than .003.,, not .020.. On a properly chambered rifle you want zero head space... You can't always get this untill you fire form a case, then you just size the neck to hold the bullet, on a centerfire case you have the case expanding to seal in gas pressure. with this ultimate priming system you have nothing but the pressure of the two componets to seal gas pressure in. If its not pressed togather pretty tight it wont seal..you actually need a negitive headspace for this to work.. no matter how you add this up, there's excessive headspace if the primer is backing out of the pocket far enough to see it in a photo on a cell phone,,, we all have our tolerances and what we think is exceptable, if primers backing out .020 is ok with you and you're happy then ok, but I would not be happy and know something is not right..
Jeff Hankins.
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 27, 2015 22:12:05 GMT -5
P.S., it's good to hear you are working on a drop in breech plug to swap out. That would make a simple user friendly option to run the gun with your modules. Being able to keep the barrel and run Blackhorn with a drop in plug is attractive. Best Edit to add, mine does not have that much head clearance, but it does have a little head clearance. The primer being pushed back against the bolt face within the specified head clearance does in fact appear to aid the sealing of the casing internal cone against the breech nipple. Though it is very simple to tap out the spent primer, it is of greater difficulty to drive it back into a seated position. So the landing of the firing pin and the driving of the primer against the firing pin as it moves back against the bolt face, does appear to have some input toward having an equal and opposite reaction of driving the casing and its internal cone against the nipple. It does seal, even with the built in head clearance. It takes quite a number of re-primes to reach the point that the seal breaks. It is my understanding, this is the very reason this breech design can take advantage of that fourth pellet, that equal and opposite reaction places the fire of the rifle primer directly into the tip of the nipple, with no vacant space to fill, before shooting through a short fire channel to ignite the charge.
|
|
|
Post by cr500afx on Jan 27, 2015 22:27:26 GMT -5
Using go and no go gages to set up headspace, the difference in length is typically .003 to .004 in. Jeff is right, I wouldn't even consider shooting a rifle with .020 in of headspace. It is easy to get a ballpark headspace measurement if yours is excessive. Put layers of masking tape on the rear of the cartridge and chamber it. Measure the masking tape with calipers to determine layer thickness. Continue adding layers until the bolt is met with resistance during the lockup into battery. If more than two layers are required to meet resistance, I would consider the gun unsafe.
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 27, 2015 22:44:45 GMT -5
If it were my rifle and a new casing was failing the very first time it was chambered and fired, I'd get Remington to create a Ticket, and when they respond, they should email you a link to initiate a UPS pick up. Let them check the rifle, and I'm sure they will either correct any head space issue or send you a new rifle. I'd not fool around with the plastigauge, don't think you will gain any accurate measurement. Send that puppy back. Best
|
|
|
Post by mainous on Jan 28, 2015 0:03:27 GMT -5
Well.. I can see I have created quite the buzz this evening. I appreciate all of the feedback provided. sgellis I understand what forces are pushing the primers back out on this rifle (and in turn pressing the case against the nipple). I just don't think there should be room for pronounced protrusion. Regarding the plastigauge, I did place it between the face of the case and the bolt face. I too was concerned about case base deflection and also tried the next smaller size (.004-.009) and it did not crush at all so while getting a truly accurate measurement is unlikely, I think the exercise proved the point. encore50a the leakage is contained in the brass case.
Remington has already stated they will take it in under warranty. I just wish I could have a similar discussion to the one that took place above with them to feel better about shipping it.
Jeff Hankins I know you don't have a timeline on a conversion breach plug. What would be your turnaround time to get this rifle re-barreled with your system similar to the others you are working on?
Thanks, Jeff
|
|
|
Post by hankinsrfls on Jan 28, 2015 0:18:26 GMT -5
Sounds like it is a new Remington based his post above. The thread on my Ultimates is 11/16 X 16 if anyone knows what the New Remongton is, thanks, Ray I did not measure the threads on the new Remington breech plug, but looking at pictures that I have when it was last out, it appears to have 19-threads within a measured 3/4-inches, so it has a finer thread than your Johnston plug. Remington sent me an email, didn't specify thread size, but they noted the change to stronger thread design with an interference fit to protect against the erosion issues they saw when testing the Johnston breech plug. So it doesn't appear you can just swap out the two different plugs, without starting from scratch when threading the barrel for a breech plug. I have a spare, but left it at the shop, I'll get an accurate measurement first chance. Best The Remington plug thread per inch is 24. I put the thread gauge on it tonight to be sure
I then glass beaded the plug to remove the copper stain. It does not have a copper washer or any other copper sealing agent used in the barrel or plug. The copper color seen on the plugs must be coming from their heat treatment and tempering. Once I blasted this plug the copper color instantly was removed.
Jeff Hankins
|
|
|
Post by hankinsrfls on Jan 28, 2015 0:28:21 GMT -5
Well.. I can see I have created quite the buzz this evening. I appreciate all of the feedback provided. sgellis I understand what forces are pushing the primers back out on this rifle (and in turn pressing the case against the nipple). I just don't think there should be room for pronounced protrusion. Regarding the plastigauge, I did place it between the face of the case and the bolt face. I too was concerned about case base deflection and also tried the next smaller size (.004-.009) and it did not crush at all so while getting a truly accurate measurement is unlikely, I think the exercise proved the point. encore50a the leakage is contained in the brass case. Remington has already stated they will take it in under warranty. I just wish I could have a similar discussion to the one that took place above with them to feel better about shipping it. Jeff Hankins I know you don't have a timeline on a conversion breach plug. What would be your turnaround time to get this rifle re-barreled with your system similar to the others you are working on? Thanks, Jeff PM sent....
|
|
|
Post by encore50a on Jan 28, 2015 7:49:12 GMT -5
I appreciate the information Jeff has contributed.
I know there are those who have felt that I may have indicated that the "sky is falling", but I think Jeff has explained it very well. In the posts where I've stated that the brass/nipple fit is critical, I still believe that and I think Jeff is also saying it, maybe putting it in much better terms. The tight fit is what will depend on how many times each piece of brass can be re-primed and if there's excessive head space, case life would be less. In this case, the primers are leaking on the first firing. If the primer is backing out, it would also seem to me that the brass is also backing off the nipple.
With the Ultimate Firearms Inc. rifle, I don't get primers backing out like identified like those photos. I believe its also why I was sent the tool I shared on page 3 of this posting, in case I have a piece of brass that won't allow the bolt to close. I have had to use the tool on a few pieces.
|
|
|
Post by sgellis on Jan 31, 2015 21:28:09 GMT -5
Well.. I can see I have created quite the buzz this evening. I appreciate all of the feedback provided. sgellis I understand what forces are pushing the primers back out on this rifle (and in turn pressing the case against the nipple). I just don't think there should be room for pronounced protrusion. Regarding the plastigauge, I did place it between the face of the case and the bolt face. I too was concerned about case base deflection and also tried the next smaller size (.004-.009) and it did not crush at all so while getting a truly accurate measurement is unlikely, I think the exercise proved the point. encore50a the leakage is contained in the brass case. Remington has already stated they will take it in under warranty. I just wish I could have a similar discussion to the one that took place above with them to feel better about shipping it. Thanks, Jeff Spent the entire day at the farm shooting the rifle, thought I’d give you some sort of benchmark so you could see that the UML ignition cases can seal well. Sorry for the bad pics, was stuck with an old flip phone. Really bad pic, but you can still see my rifle, like any production rifle, has built-in head clearance. It is not much, but it is there and can be seen as the primer will always be driven back in the primer pocket within that head clearance as it parks itself against the bolt face. You don’t notice this when shooting a conventional cartridge, because the internal charge parks the case head against the bolt face as well, but the UML casing has no internal charge to drive the case head back, it is only driven forward. Yours may indeed have an excessive amount of head clearance, but mine does not as it works well. Up until today, I’ve been pushing the same lot of UML casings four re-primes for five total shots. Today, I went to five re-primes for a total of six shots. In addition, I hated spending the money being I already have a case lot, but I went ahead and purchased two individual bags from two different stores, to try different lots of casings. I was unable to notice any difference in performance between the different lots. Casing on the left is brand new out the packaging, center casing was just fired for the fifth time, casing on the right was just fired for the sixth time. You cannot tell any difference between any of them, there is no hint of any break in the seal, no blow back whatsoever. I may still push these further, but I have reached the point that they are cost effective if I stop at the Remington recommended six firings maximum. This is the nipple after firing 30 rounds of mixed bag UML casings from new to being fired as many as six times. Not one spec of leakage outside the tip of the nipple. Complete sealing with 100% of the magnum large rifle primer being fired directly into the tip of the nipple and straight down the fire channel. Zero blow back. Going one step further, I noticed some of the UML casings had the primer hole visibly a tad off apparent center. I thought these would be great candidates to find some leakage, but no, they completely sealed without fail. End results, I am convinced that having any type of crush fit with this type of ignition system would hurt, and not help. Having minimal clearance is good, but any crushing will actually damage the inner cone of the casing against the hard nipple, and would not give the casing any room to center itself. Having the built in head clearance actually appears to help, as the inner cone of the casing self centers itself over the cone of the nipple because it has this slight wiggle room. As noted before, the physics involved from the firing pin dropping against the primer, and the primer firing within the primer pocket, not only drives the primer back against the bolt, but drives the casing against the nipple. So it self centers, it seals, and the cone within cone directs all the fire of the primer directly down the fire channel. This is how they fire that fourth pellet, which to my understanding has never been accomplished by anyone in the industry when using a 209 primer, because of the inherent spatial void directly below the primer within a 209 breech plug, which causes a loss of efficiency in getting the fire from the primer into the fire channel, and directed into the charge. As a side note, this go around was working with the fixed sights. This may be of interest for someone wanting to switch between a scope and fixed sights. My friend and hunting partner is a longtime guild gunsmith with a shop second to none. I had intended to make a permanent shim to raise the factory Williams guide sight to regulate the sights, but instead, we dug up a new in the box vintage Lyman 57wjs receiver sight, machined from solid steel, AWESOME! Being the sight has a repeatable quick release feature that holds zero, I decided to install this sight so that I could use quick release scope bases below the sight. This way I could push one button and pull the sight, then I could pop on a scope. I'm leaning toward using 2-piece Mark4 Picatinny bases (8-40) on the receiver, as they should fit perfectly with the set-up. Then I can quickly switch back and forth between scope and fixed sights while holding zero. Sights worked extremely well, with the exception the factory .0750” white bead is a bit course. Will probably switch to a smaller 1/16” brass bead. The larger bead nearly fills a 16-inch aiming black on a 17" x 17" backer at 150-yards, but it still groups exceedingly well. Using a hunting peep, I was still able to hold sub-MOA at 150-yards posting the below 3-shot group, which measured ¾” wide by 1 ¼” tall. Was testing the group with the first shot fired on a clean barrel, which was the lowest shot of the three. Suspect that if I kept firing rounds, they would continue to pile up with the upper two shots. Running low on these Parker bullets, so I had to conserve. Regardless, I think that's pretty good for an old man using fixed hunting sights. When I get the new bases installed, I'll throw the Schmidt and Bender back on the rifle and see how well she shoots at longer ranges. Hope this feedback gives you some idea of how well the rifle can work. Would be interesting to see the nipple of your breech plug and inside of your UML casings. Would like to get some idea how badly yours is failing to seal in relation to how far it may be out of head space. It would also be interesting to note any gas cutting or erosion to the nipple. Best
|
|
|
Post by jims on Feb 1, 2015 9:18:55 GMT -5
Nice photos and write up. I was surprised how clean everything was, it does not appear you would want to change anything on your rifle.
|
|
|
Post by rkrobson on Feb 1, 2015 9:56:13 GMT -5
For those who care the Remington cases have a smaller diameter primer hole and are snugger when seated on the breech plug, this is one of the improvements Remington claims they made when going to the Ultimate ignition system. They fit perfectly fine on my Johnston Ultimate, the cases are just a little shorter in length. Ray
|
|