|
Post by bestill on Jan 31, 2016 20:48:40 GMT -5
Since .030,.035,.040 have been out now for awhile what is the concensus of different sizes and proper application for each.. Ive always used .030 with .156 x .800 flame channel and had great results just wanting to hear and understand more. Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 7:30:37 GMT -5
I like to use the .040 for everything now. The arrowhead plug will support heavier loads than previous plugs in my opinion, but depending on application I use up to a .031 cubic in flame channel.
|
|
|
Post by jims on Feb 1, 2016 11:25:56 GMT -5
I think earnhardt did some testing with various size bushings. He may be able to provide information.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 1, 2016 15:00:02 GMT -5
Just ordered a .035 to play with. Have used .023, .028, .031 and .040 bushings. Would tend to think the .030/31 should be about right for most applications but will see then the .035 arrives and gets some shots on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 15:13:37 GMT -5
5/32 flame channel, 030 bushing is what I use in my guns, .40 .416 .45.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 16:51:33 GMT -5
Just ordered a .035 to play with. Have used .023, .028, .031 and .040 bushings. Would tend to think the .030/31 should be about right for most applications but will see then the .035 arrives and gets some shots on it. Where did you order one from? Luke doesn't list one.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Feb 1, 2016 21:13:57 GMT -5
I can't say the name on this forum?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 22:24:57 GMT -5
cMcfirearms.com has .030 .035 and .037 available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 23:26:32 GMT -5
I can't say the name on this forum? Those are shorter than the ones Luke sells and if your plug is set up for Luke's bushing your lock ring may not thread in far enough to secure it.
|
|
|
Post by Earnhardt on Feb 2, 2016 8:14:31 GMT -5
I think earnhardt did some testing with various size bushings. He may be able to provide information. .040" in the .45's
.035" in the .416's
The .040" allows 2x's the flame and pressure into the powder than a .030" does.
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Feb 2, 2016 8:34:36 GMT -5
I think earnhardt did some testing with various size bushings. He may be able to provide information. .040" in the .45's
.035" in the .416's
The .040" allows 2x's the flame and pressure into the powder than a .030" does.
That being said would it also allow more pressure back on primer resulting in have to enlarge flame channel?
|
|
|
Post by moto357 on Feb 2, 2016 9:02:09 GMT -5
With the primer properly supported and a 5/32 flame channel, shouldn't be any problems at all
|
|
|
Post by fishhawk on Feb 2, 2016 9:37:14 GMT -5
I still make any size in Tungsten Carbide or Pure Tungsten.
|
|
|
Post by Dave W on Feb 2, 2016 14:46:55 GMT -5
Closing in on 300 shots through the .037 CMC supplied with my gun, no cracks or growth in orifice.
|
|
|
Post by Earnhardt on Feb 2, 2016 17:26:23 GMT -5
.040" in the .45's
.035" in the .416's
The .040" allows 2x's the flame and pressure into the powder than a .030" does.
That being said would it also allow more pressure back on primer resulting in have to enlarge flame channel? Uhh..... you already know it does. You were the guy who told us about primer flame channels.
With an increased size bushing hole (ie .040" vs. .030"), there will be more blowback from the powder ignition. This is remedied by opening up the PFC.
Small size bushings, such as .016" and .020" can cause the primer to damage also. By not allowing enough of the primer's ignition gasses to escape into the powder. Because it is restricted by the smaller size bushing hole. This is also remedied by opening the PFC.
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Feb 2, 2016 18:03:34 GMT -5
I was just curious what the concensus was for the .040
|
|
|
Post by TGinPA on Feb 2, 2016 18:31:56 GMT -5
That being said would it also allow more pressure back on primer resulting in have to enlarge flame channel? Uhh..... you already know it does. You were the guy who told us about primer flame channels.
With an increased size bushing home (ie .040" vs. .030"), there will be more blowback from the powder ignition. This is remedied by opening up the PFC.
Small size bushings, such as .016" and .020" can cause the primer to damage. By not allowing enough of the primer's ignition gasses to escape into the powder. Because it is restricted by the smaller size bushing hole
Earnhardt: I have been using a pure tungsten .021 bushing generously supplied to me by Fishhawk (14/64 PFC, Savage plug) in a .375 cal bbl and see no signs of primer damage when the primer is ignited without a powder charge in front. I have some photos to show this. So, it might be useful to know precisely what kind of damage you attribute to the small flame orifice due to pressure generated by the primer alone? Or, maybe the .021 orifice is just enough to avoid the problem? TG
|
|
|
Post by rambler on Feb 2, 2016 18:37:37 GMT -5
I was just curious what the concensus was for the .040 I'm not sure if this is relevant but in my break open, when I drilled out the flame channel to about 11/64 and started using an .040 tungsten bushing, bulged primers went away....unless of course I got wild and over loaded it...that ceased very quickly. With that set up pressures using 65gr of IMR4198 were comfortable and primers came out easy, no blow by, no muss no fuss.
|
|
|
Post by Earnhardt on Feb 2, 2016 18:51:13 GMT -5
Uhh..... you already know it does. You were the guy who told us about primer flame channels.
With an increased size bushing home (ie .040" vs. .030"), there will be more blowback from the powder ignition. This is remedied by opening up the PFC.
Small size bushings, such as .016" and .020" can cause the primer to damage. By not allowing enough of the primer's ignition gasses to escape into the powder. Because it is restricted by the smaller size bushing hole
Earnhardt: I have been using a pure tungsten .021 bushing generously supplied to me by Fishhawk (14/64 PFC, Savage plug) in a .375 cal bbl and see no signs of primer damage when the primer is ignited without a powder charge in front. I have some photos to show this. So, it might be useful to know precisely what kind of damage you attribute to the small flame orifice due to pressure generated by the primer alone? Or, maybe the .021 orifice is just enough to avoid the problem? TG Don't get me wrong, I wasn't blowing the primers apart by any means. When I started with the .416's, and using heavy loads of Retumbo or H1000, with 375 CEBs, I would see slight signs of primer damage on the first shots. As the carbon crud built up in the PFC the primer bulging would progressively get worse, even though the bushing hole was the same size. I would clean the crud out of the PFC, and the primer damage would be minimal. This was before bestill told us about opening up the PFC's...If I new that then, I would have opened up the PFCs when using .016-.020" bushings also.
Is there any primer damage with the .021" bushing with a powder load and a bullet in the barrel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 19:34:47 GMT -5
Earnhardt: What, if any, are the negative effects of enlarging the flame channel? Also, How much of the primer is supported in your plugs? In other words, do you have a shelf in your breech plug and how deep is it. What plug are you using too?
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Feb 2, 2016 20:42:17 GMT -5
When shooting heavy blackhorn loads if flame channel volume gets to large i would get slight hang fire in cold weather.
|
|
|
Post by Earnhardt on Feb 2, 2016 21:54:07 GMT -5
When shooting heavy blackhorn loads if flame channel volume gets to large i would get slight hang fire in cold weather. With which primer?
|
|
|
Post by Earnhardt on Feb 2, 2016 21:55:30 GMT -5
Earnhardt: What, if any, are the negative effects of enlarging the flame channel? Also, How much of the primer is supported in your plugs? In other words, do you have a shelf in your breech plug and how deep is it. What plug are you using too? The only side effect I can think of is the smaller primer shelf that you mentioned. And it hasn't been a problem for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 22:21:49 GMT -5
Earnhardt: What, if any, are the negative effects of enlarging the flame channel? Also, How much of the primer is supported in your plugs? In other words, do you have a shelf in your breech plug and how deep is it. What plug are you using too? The only side effect I can think of is the smaller primer shelf that you mentioned. And it hasn't been a problem for me.
How deep is the shoulder in your plug and what plug are you using?
|
|
|
Post by bestill on Feb 2, 2016 22:25:25 GMT -5
When shooting heavy blackhorn loads if flame channel volume gets to large i would get slight hang fire in cold weather. With which primer? Federal209A
|
|
|
Post by Earnhardt on Feb 2, 2016 22:57:30 GMT -5
Arrowhead plug, with the standard shoulder depth of...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 23:00:36 GMT -5
.230"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 23:31:29 GMT -5
That is interesting because I can only get .200 of the primer into a savage plug using a Savage SA 209 bolt head. That is with the BP primer pocket nose touching the bolt head. I can machine the chamfer on the bolt head a little deeper and get the .230 primer penetration. With .230" of penetration, only .045" of primer are unsupported. That should be pretty immune to bulging. I have a couple of builds in the works right now. One with a Savage BP and one with an Arrowhead plug and I would like to get the primer penetration maximized on both before bedding. What are your thoughts? See pic
|
|
|
Post by lwh723 on Feb 3, 2016 8:23:07 GMT -5
I am working on getting setup to do another run of the Savage bolt heads. As designed, you're right, you can only get about 0.190-0.200 insertion. As of right now, I've got two enhancements planned for this next run. 1) Modify the head to allow for deeper insertion. 2) Rotate primer slot 15* lower, to allow for easier insertion/removal on the target actions.
|
|
|
Post by rambler on Feb 3, 2016 9:03:21 GMT -5
I am working on getting setup to do another run of the Savage bolt heads. As designed, you're right, you can only get about 0.190-0.200 insertion. As of right now, I've got two enhancements planned for this next run. 1) Modify the head to allow for deeper insertion. 2) Rotate primer slot 15* lower, to allow for easier insertion/removal on the target actions. Now you're doing this LOL. This would help out alot on inserting and extracting on the target action.
|
|