|
|
Post by ET on Sept 26, 2019 19:49:09 GMT -5
Taking into consideration time restraints and possible number of range outings left this year I’m going alter my PT schedule. As 4759 is a discontinued powder and fairly predictable on its burn response, I’ve decided to focus on 4227 because of its initial response on my last PT outing. I was really impressed with the unexpected response it showed. I will complete my scheduled load resistance test with this powder for now with my 5/16”x5/8” recessed BP. Then move onto my 3/8”x5/8” recessed BP with 4227. After that using a standard Savage BP (complimentary being supplied by Billc) with 4227. The standard Savage BP and 4227 may have to wait until next year but it will get tested.
In the past when I first started with the 10mL-II I too experienced some misfires with 4227 because lack of education. 3 things I did not do was keep the BP really clean a point Mrbuck pointed out. No powder compression applied and no reasonable load resistance with bullet/sabot.
I now feel differently about 4227 that may prove to be a good powder for the 10ML-II if properly used.
Now if I can slow down the rise time, I’ll have it made for what I want from this powder for performance. I’m already close to 2500fps with peak pressure under 30K. Room to play, chuckle.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 13, 2019 4:21:10 GMT -5
Ed,
H4227 was a powder that Savage wanted Toby and I to test in the 10ML. We experienced numerous mis-fires. Modules were a major problem. 4227 had already fallen from favor by the time we started testing the ML2. It does need to have some load resistance. H4227 likely does need revisited.
As we’ve discussed, VV110 seems to be the perfect powder for the 50 with sabots and, for me, the 45 saboted: 45 and 37g respectively. I have a friend in Memphis who finds it regularly at various gun stores. A store in Cape Girdeau, MO also carries VV powders.
37g VV110 gets 2510’/sec/200SST, 2530/195B with little recoil in the 45. Clean and no temp sensitivity. I’d even consider driving into a Blue state to buy some.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 13, 2019 19:47:11 GMT -5
Ed, H4227 was a powder that Savage wanted Toby and I to test in the 10ML. We experienced numerous mis-fires. Modules were a major problem. 4227 had already fallen from favor by the time we started testing the ML2. It does need to have some load resistance. H4227 likely does need revisited. As we’ve discussed, VV110 seems to be the perfect powder for the 50 with sabots and, for me, the 45 saboted: 45 and 37g respectively. I have a friend in Memphis who finds it regularly at various gun stores. A store in Cape Girdeau, MO also carries VV powders. 37g VV110 gets 2510’/sec/200SST, 2530/195B with little recoil in the 45. Clean and no temp sensitivity. I’d even consider driving into a Blue state to buy some. Steve Steve I would not dispute what you have said about VV110. It may well be the ideal powder for 50 and 45 for the average SML shooter. As stated before I don't have access to VV110. Now my testing is not just about 4227. Another factor here is about load resistance. humor me for a bit. When ambient temp climbs in the summer time many shooters who use sabots put their SML away. Many say that warmer summer temps is the enemy of the sabot. So what does these warmer temps do to the sabot. It alters some of the plastics physical characteristics such as elasticity. With additional heat the sabot becomes more pliable and that suggests to me there is a loss in load resistance. Okay I'm getting ahead of myself with personal theory's. But now that I have some additional tooling I will be better monitoring certain conditions. Let's just say I hope to do more accurate shooting in the summer time. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 13, 2019 23:15:33 GMT -5
The lack of load resistance may be offset by the powder having more energy with higher temperatures.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 13, 2019 23:45:30 GMT -5
The lack of load resistance may be offset by the powder having more energy with higher temperatures. Interesting statement that in essence says powder is temp sensitive to offset load resistance. I can't accept that because the powder burn rate is controlled by it's ability to accelerate with pressure build up. The load resistance basically dictates how much pressure can be built (before bullet load moves) that establishes the final stage and end result of the burn. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 14, 2019 9:07:03 GMT -5
Ed,
I suspect you are correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 14, 2019 11:13:11 GMT -5
Ed, I suspect you are correct. Steve I believe I'm on the right track until collected data derails me, chuckle. Now with more higher temps in the summer time making the sabot a little more pliable that might possibly cause some problems with faster rise time loads. Here your recommendation of using a wad may well prove beneficial to cushioning the sabot to the faster oncoming pressure build up. Here I will include some testing with wads and let collected data tell the story. For me 2020 will be an interesting year, chuckle. Now I will also add that there are different BP's out there that may offset some of the load resistance requirements because of the hotter start they initiate. But there will still be a minimum load tightness with sabots for consistent performances. I will only be able to vouch for Savage BP's and whatever configuration (recess) and primers I use. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 14, 2019 12:23:20 GMT -5
Ed,
Since I’m exclusively using 209s and RB’s BPs, my powder loads should translate to other 209 ignited 45 users. The HIS and DI appear much hotter and efficient. If I sell my 2 10ML2s with 45 barrels and original barrels, I’ll be out of the 50 cal business.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 14, 2019 12:46:00 GMT -5
Ed, Since I’m exclusively using 209s and RB’s BPs, my powder loads should translate to other 209 ignited 45 users. The HIS and DI appear much hotter and efficient. If I sell my 2 10ML2s with 45 barrels and original barrels, I’ll be out of the 50 cal business. Best wishes if you decide to move forward in another area of SML. Me I'm happy where I am and there are still new challenges to explore. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 14, 2019 13:47:41 GMT -5
👍
|
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 18, 2019 9:30:56 GMT -5
Ed,
I don’t see the 50 as having the deficiencies that I once thought between it and the 45. 45g VV110/wad/250TMZ is about 2430, best I remember. It had virtually no temp sensitivity, subMOA and decent to 250 yards(didn’t test beyond). There are more aerodynamic 452 bullets now, your low pressure with H4227 (giving the thought that it has much more potential), newer BPs, etc all give the thought that there may well be another saboted 2600’/sec load with even more potential than is being used now.
I probably became extremely recoil shy during all the testing from ‘99-2001 since I destroyed armloads of scopes. This paved the way to wanting lower recoiling guns.
In summary, 4227 was prematurely discarded due to leaky modules and possibly loading in a manner that wasn’t to its liking. I’ll be following you. Bet you’ll come up with a winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 18, 2019 17:19:09 GMT -5
Ed, I don’t see the 50 as having the deficiencies that I once thought between it and the 45. 45g VV110/wad/250TMZ is about 2430, best I remember. It had virtually no temp sensitivity, subMOA and decent to 250 yards(didn’t test beyond). There are more aerodynamic 452 bullets now, your low pressure with H4227 (giving the thought that it has much more potential), newer BPs, etc all give the thought that there may well be another saboted 2600’/sec load with even more potential than is being used now. I probably became extremely recoil shy during all the testing from ‘99-2001 since I destroyed armloads of scopes. This paved the way to wanting lower recoiling guns. In summary, 4227 was prematurely discarded due to leaky modules and possibly loading in a manner that wasn’t to its liking. I’ll be following you. Bet you’ll come up with a winner. Thanks for the word of encouragement. I know what you mean about the mileage on the body and later affect. For now my original thought is to study powder burn rates under different parameters such as load resistance and modified BP's. I need to know what I have to work with. Even my short initial testing results are an eye opener to say the least. Now one advantage I believe I might have over hotter fixed BP's is that I may be able to adjust the burn start intensity with different recessed BP's. When I get around to load development I will be looking for a load that has 90-100 rise time and close to 35K peak pressure on the PT graph. Okay 4227 has started the open round with a 250gr bullet. This will be followed with 225ftx and 200ftx with Alliant 2400. My only problem is now I have to wait until Spring to resume my tests. Steve you been an innovator with SML in the beginning. I believe this will extend into what area of SML you chose. So I in turn will be watching your progress and more than likely learn something from your results. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Nov 18, 2019 20:50:51 GMT -5
Ed,
As of now, I have 2 smokeless MLers: the 45 Obo and a 40 cal. Both 209/ventliners. I’m going to start working more with these two remaining MLers. I am getting a used 45 Rem/Brux 45/HIS. Looking forward at moving into this arena also.
Concerning 2400. Very dirty! Very accurate. Low recoil. 34g was the recommended load.
Good luck. Will look forward to your reports.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 19, 2019 0:02:24 GMT -5
Ed, As of now, I have 2 smokeless MLers: the 45 Obo and a 40 cal. Both 209/ventliners. I’m going to start working more with these two remaining MLers. I am getting a used 45 Rem/Brux 45/HIS. Looking forward at moving into this arena also. Concerning 2400. Very dirty! Very accurate. Low recoil. 34g was the recommended load. Good luck. Will look forward to your reports. Thanks for the heads-up on 2400 response and being dirty. Yes in my past notes 34gr of 2400 with 250gr bullet was a recommended load. For the 225gr bullet I was planning on starting with 36gr of 2400 to use as my base load across the different BP's I have. Also watching the effect of different load resistance. In the past load resistance was never considered when load developing because of the extra difficulty of loading. With the aid of a T handle the tighter loads are not an issue with me because 2-hands can be easily employed. You have my interest concerning employing a different BP (HIS) and comparison with the BP using 209 primers. I know you will give it a detailed evaluation. Even though we are using different calibers it will be like the old days sharing results on the main board. Part of me wishes to see this more often again. I imagine there are a lot of SML shooters who have found a favorite load and don't see the need to explore any further for load improvement. Can't blame them for that but for a couple of diehards like us we like to see if another level possibly exists, chuckle. Before hibernating my 10ML-II I was seeing groups often under an inch at 100yds and want to start reproducing them again without 4759. Nothing like having a shooter in your hands when the time and opportunity comes to bring home the meat. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by jims on Nov 20, 2019 19:11:39 GMT -5
I used 2400 years ago in my stock Sav MLII in .50. Never really cared for it and it was dirty. Maybe I gave up on it too soon but favor other powders now. Gave my 2400 away either for a .410 or .22 Hornet user as I recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 20, 2019 21:11:08 GMT -5
I used 2400 years ago in my stock Sav MLII in .50. Never really cared for it and it was dirty. Maybe I gave up on it too soon but favor other powders now. Gave my 2400 away either for a .410 or .22 Hornet user as I recall. Thanks for your input of your experience with 2400. This kind of info prepares me for what I'm walking into with the testing I have planned in the New Year. Kind of feeling a little frustrated I can't continue with the onset of cold/freezing weather that might affect the electronics. Now my curiosity about the dirtiness of 2400, can it be reduced with a hotter or stronger powder burn? Just a sideline question as I'm looking more at the performance it can provide. I always clean my 50 before the start of each testing session and I'll find out how dirty 2400 is, chuckle. The main purpose for 2400 if it shows good performance is intended for the 200FTX and the 225FTX. It would be nice to have a good varmint load. Also to keep powder usage at a reasonable level. The other interest is trying to keep my loads to single powders avoiding duplex. Not that I have anything against duplex loads but prefer to avoid using them. To occupy some of my time I started to look at why a 50/40 sabot load doesn't work. I know in the past these sabots were not designed to handle the pressures we would subject them too. But MMP now appears to apply better sabot quality to the blue 50/40 sabot. Okay I will have plenty to do with the 45cal 200FTX first. But once I obtain my other goals and feel bored I have one last area to eventually explore. Hey I got to keep my inquisitive mind occupied even if it's just theorizing, chuckle. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by jims on Nov 21, 2019 8:48:17 GMT -5
Now I have no real insight into the 50/40 sabot combo other than they never shot well for me. It always seemed the "magic" sabot for me was closer in size to the bore, the .050 difference. Never had much luck with .44 caliber bullets and sabots either in a .50.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 21, 2019 10:31:33 GMT -5
Now I have no real insight into the 50/40 sabot combo other than they never shot well for me. It always seemed the "magic" sabot for me was closer in size to the bore, the .050 difference. Never had much luck with .44 caliber bullets and sabots either in a .50. Jims What intrigues me about the 50/40 concept is that they are used with inline muzzle loaders. Why won't they perform in a SML? If they can be made to perform then that opens up more bullet selection. I already know how I would approach this when the time should arrive to further explore this. Here I would need to examine the spent sabots first hand to see what clues it might reveal to its performance. If it doesn't work then I can put my mind at ease about this. I agree that thinner sabot petals is the ideal way to go. But is it the only way? For now my mind is occupied with another project that hopefully will help with better equipment organization at the shooting bench. May not look as aesthetic as I would like but as long as it accomplishes the task I will be content. For some reason I've now taken a greater interest in exploring the 50 SML capabilities and numerous additional projects since I've returned. I'm even considering a faster powder to try with lighter loads for reduced recoils. My goal is not higher velocities obtainable but won't reject them if they appear. My goal is accuracy with a good performing load. And I have my work cut out for me, chuckle. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by jims on Nov 21, 2019 22:56:48 GMT -5
Now edge at one time had some specific sabots he used in his SML. You could check with him but I think he shot .30 or 8mm sized bullets in a .45 or .50 bore as I recall with good results. I thought his machined sabots were some type of a PVC material and required prompt cleaning of the bore after the end of shooting to avoid some bore problems. He is a skilled machinist and has access to machinery most of us might not so I do not know how practical for most his sabots would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Nov 22, 2019 8:13:21 GMT -5
Now edge at one time had some specific sabots he used in his SML. You could check with him but I think he shot .30 or 8mm sized bullets in a .45 or .50 bore as I recall with good results. I thought his machined sabots were some type of a PVC material and required prompt cleaning of the bore after the end of shooting to avoid some bore problems. He is a skilled machinist and has access to machinery most of us might not so I do not know how practical for most his sabots would be. Yes I remember some of this with machining sabots. Edge was one the first innovators to explore betterment of SML. I'm a big fan of the recessed BP that he introduced. As for sabots we are limited to what is commercially available. How we use these sabots can make the difference for a good performing load. It still amazes me that less than 50% of bore surface is utilized in supporting the hold of sabot to bullet. Then take into account the strength of that grip for the pressures and bore velocity we use with SML. If the sabot doesn't have the proper tightness of fit, which I call load resistance then it can't perform the task properly we expect from it. There are many numerous factors for proper load performance. That what makes life interesting with SML. ED |
|
