In July of 1997, my Bitterroot Valley neighbor and new friend Ed Plummer came down from his magnificent aerie high on a mountain above Hamilton, Montana, with an attractive plan � a new company to produce quality hunting rifles and the special premium ammo for them. He wanted to chamber his rifles for a new line of superior cartridges and asked me to play around with the .30-06 case to design a new .338, a new .358, and a new .375 that would use all the possible potential of the ubiquitous .30-06 case. What an attractive and intriguing suggestion! I jumped on it right away, of course.

The basic ideas behind the new cartridges gave me the welcome and unprecedented new opportunity to engineer several new cartridge designs based on interior-ballistics principles and performance criteria that would be both more practical and more realistic than the all-too-familiar criterion, "velocity at any price," that for so long has been the tradition responsible for so many cartridge designs.

With a personal portfolio of well over a hundred original cartridge designs behind me, this was a truly inspiring special opportunity to design cartridges according to my best judgement rather than what someone else thought that they should be. I could � and should � make the best possible use of the principles of interior ballistics instead of ignoring them for the single purpose of producing maximum velocities and the costs be damned.

The new company had no name yet. Ed liked "Cougar Arms" (cougars often came to visit his high-mountain property), but I suggested that the company's name should give some idea of what it produced, and he adopted the name that I suggested � American Hunting Rifles (AHR). When Ed was puzzling over what title to put on my gun-show badge and AHR business card, I suggested "Plummer's Helper." It fit my role perfectly.

Ed's extensive experience in creating and operating manufacturing companies did not include any experience in the gun industry, so I gave him advice, counsel, and contacts (some of which he used), a good bit more than cartridge designs and a name suggestion. But at no point have I had any financial interest in the company and to date have not received a cent of pay, commission, royalty, or any other financial compensation from Ed or his American Hunting Rifles. AHR was Ed Plummer's company and his alone. I was just Plummer's Helper. This wasn't another instance of the familiar "title in lieu of salary," either. I was in no way part of or involved in Ed's company. I was just the guy who designed the cartridges that he chambered some of his rifles for and loaded in custom factory-made brass.

(PS � since I first ginned-up this article, Ed has sold AHR, which still has its old web site at www.hunting-rifles.com. I am in no way connected with AHR, in any suggestion of a relationship. No friction � just separate, independent ways.)

So this article is about this family of Howell cartridges � not about me, nor about Ed Plummer, or AHR, or the AHR rifles, just the cartridges and how they came to be what they are.

The designs of new cartridges would be based on the .30-06 case. Since the AHR cases would be new, factory-made on specific contracts, the first obvious design opportunity was to have them made slightly longer than the 2.494 inches of the .30-06 case, longer even than the 2.540 inches of the .270 Winchester and .280 Remington. But not too long, of course � not as long as the Holland & Holland magnums. For all except the .220 Howell, I started with a case length of 2.600 inches, figuring that any factory that could make .270, .280, or .30-06 cases could just as easily make them just a bit longer. Handloaders who are content with slightly shorter necks can fire-form their cases for the longer Howell cartridges from any .30-06-based brass, and .220 Howell cases formed from .25-06 or .270 brass become shorter in the process.

Their bullets would be the heaviest premium big-game bullets in each caliber.

Their moderate peak chamber pressures would favor longer barrel life.

Their velocities would be adequate for their purposes but would not be the main reason for their existence.

These criteria are much more practical and realistic than may be immediately obvious to everyone. From the first, the goals for AHR's factory-loaded Howell cartridges were reasonable recoil, long barrel life, readily available economical brass, moderate velocities with heavy big-game or varmint bullets loaded to moderate pressures, maximum magazine capacity, and � above all � good performance on American big game and varmints. These cartridges should not exaggerate the backward thrust against the breech, and their traditional head diameter should give most rifle magazines their maximum capacity. For several reasons, new cartridge designs were necessary to provide the following levels of performance.

Killing power adequate for American big game does not require belted magnum cases, super-high velocities, or punishing recoil.

Most American big-game-hunting doesn't require long-range shooting, but most varmint-shooting does.

High peak chamber pressures erode barrels fast.

Heavy bullets at moderate velocities kill more reliably and tear up less meat than light bullets at high velocities.

Belted cases, at comparable peak chamber pressures, increase back-thrust force on breech lock-ups.

Belted cases reduce the capacity of the typical rifle magazine.

Belted cases cost more.

For simple consistency, I made all the necks 0.375 inch long. Plenty of friction here is vital to "bullet pull," which is so important to the interior ballistics of any cartridge.

The shoulder angles are all 25�, the steepest shoulder that the brass-makers like to produce.

These new Howell cartridges are decidedly not intended or designed to produce higher velocities. My purpose was to provide enough powder capacity for a slightly lower loading density if necessary � certainly no compressed charge � for pressures no higher than 45,000 to 47,500 copper units of pressure (CUP). So the order of ballistic priority is this: heavy bullets and moderate pressures primary, good groups mandatory, and velocities whatever they turn out to be, as long as they're good enough to do their job on American big game and varmints.

All my new cartridges are just standardized and significantly improved versions of proven classic factory and wildcat cartridges, usually just extended versions of these classics.

The .220, .240, .250, .260, .270, .280, .300, .320, .340, .350, .380, and .400 Howell offer a number of substantial improvements over the interior and exterior ballistics of (respectively) the .220 Swift, the 6mm-06, the .25-06, the 6.5mm-06, the .270 Winchester, the .280 Remington, the .30-06, the 8mm-06, the .338-06, the .35 Whelen, the .375-06, and the .400 Whelen � all long-proven excellent cartridges in their own right.

The .220 Howell is a varmint cartridge, slightly shorter than its parent .25-06 case, designed to give the 75-grain and heavier .224 bullets the velocities they deserve for long-range wind resistance. I knew of course that a lot of hunters would use it for big game, and they have � with 'em all reporting deadly results, even on game as large as elk. (Using my .220 Howell on elk still strikes me as stretching it. I wouldn=t do it.)

Ed didn't plan to buy ordinary '06 cases for his ammo. From the first, he planned to have new brass factory-made to his specifications. This plan of course opened (wide!) the door to flexibility and freedom of cartridge design. My first new design idea was to have the '06 cases trimmed to a slightly longer over-all length at the factory � 2.600 inches instead of the 2.494 inches of the .30-06 or the 2.540 inches of the .270 Winchester.

Ed had a good bit of experience in hunting big game and in handloading his own hunting ammunition. His caliber interest, however, was limited to only three � .338, .358, and .375. I knew, however, that once he introduced new cartridges in these three calibers, hunters and handloaders would immediately want other calibers on these cases. So, to anticipate this inevitable later demand, I added a .224 (more about each of these later), a .243, a .257, a .264, a .270, a .280, a .308, a .320, and a .400 to the three calibers that already interested Ed. Unlike the others, the .224 Howell would be shorter than the .30-06, not longer. I designed this one around the 75-grain Hornady .224 A-Max bullet and IMR-7828 powder.

The basic design philosophy underlying all these new cartridges is simple � (a) long barrel life, through moderate rather than maximum peak chamber pressures, and (b) heavy premium bullets rather than light, inefficient bullets. This approach calls for long case necks and maximum body capacity � both made possible by the lengthening of the original .30-06 case.

The heavy premium bullets in each caliber are long, and long bullets need to be seated in long case necks if the case is to work well in its secondary but crucial role of alignment jig to position the bullet for accurate entry into the barrel when the cartridge is fired. I=ve coined the term socket engagement for the concept of how much bullet shank the case neck grips. To appreciate the importance of socket engagement as it relates to the exposed length of the bullet, consider the parallel examples of a fence post, a telephone pole, and a flag pole.

You can get-by all right by seating a fence post no deeper than two or three feet in the ground. A telephone pole, because its exposed length is much more than the three to six above-ground feet of a fence post, has to be seated much deeper if it's to be acceptably stable. The much taller flag pole has to be seated even deeper still, or it won=t stay vertical very long. Sky-scraper buildings on Manhattan Island are seated storeys deep into bedrock. The socket engagement of the fence post would not be worth much for the telephone pole, the flag pole, or a tall building. Socket engagement that's adequate for the lightest, shortest bullets in each caliber would not be enough for the longest bullets.

Somewhat arbitrarily but with what I considered to be good reasons, I established the neck length at 0.375 inch for all twelve of the new Howell cartridges. If you look at the heaviest premium bullets in all these diameters, you'll see that they're all very nearly the same length. Therefore they all need about the same depth of socket engagement. The body length and powder capacity increase with the increase in caliber. The geometric reasons for all these work in our favor � as the caliber increases, so also do the body length and the powder capacity, in proportion, while the case length, the neck length, and the shoulder angle remain the same for all these new cases.

The increase in case length provides for this increase in the length of most necks but usually doesn't require that the cartridge be loaded to a much longer over-all length. (Longer, yes, but not much longer.) Mainly, the increases in case length and neck length allow the body to be longer for substantial increases in case capacity, while they also extend the necks forward to grasp more of the bullets' shanks. Cases for the Howell cartridges can be formed from any suitable .30-06-based cases, with all the increase in powder capacity of the Howell version but without the greater grip and alignment of the longer necks.

Manufacturers have trouble making cases with steep shoulders and prefer shoulder angles no steeper than 25�. Despite much unproven theorizing otherwise, slight variations in shoulder angles don't produce much difference in the interior or exterior ballistics of cartridges anyway, so my twelve new Howell cartridges all have 25� shoulders. Increasing this angle to 30� or even 40� would make very little difference in case capacity, no discernible difference in down-range performance, and unnecessary difficulty in the manufacture of the cases. Wildcatters can blow the shoulder of any Howell case out to 30�, 35�, or even 40� to their hearts' content without making any appreciable difference in the down-range performance of the cartridge.

Blind reliance on the all-too-well established bar-stool or barber-shop (BS) ballistics makes it hard for some shooters to understand or accept the effects of certain proven interior-ballistics principles that make these cartridges work as I've designed them to work. The toughest knot for some to swallow is the fact that by (a) making the case of a new cartridge a good bit more capacious than that of an older cartridge, then (b) loading it with a larger charge but (c) not to its maximum safe pressures, (d) the same bullet can be propelled faster but without peak chamber pressures as high as those in the smaller cartridge at its lower velocity. This phenomenon has been a solid part of interior ballistics as long as there've been cartridges and rifles. The loading manuals are full of examples.

Let's look at the loads for two cartridges, chosen pretty much at random from the 50th Anniversary edition of the Sierra rifle manual � the obviously smaller .300 Savage and the obviously larger .30-06, both loaded with the Sierra 165-grain hollow-point boat-tail bullets, using the same seven powders. As the load-manual tables show, you can load the .30-06 somewhat lighter than it can stand, with slightly more powder than the top high-pressure loads in the .300 Savage, and gain a respectable amount of velocity at milder pressures.

A few more grains of powder in the larger .30-06 case � but not enough more powder to raise the .30-06's peak pressures to their maximum � propel the bullets faster than the smaller charges in the Savage at maximum peak pressures for the smaller cartridge. The italicized velocities are not only higher than the .300 Savage could safely produce � their pressures are lower than the maximum for the .30-06, which means they're easier on the barrel than top-velocity loads in either of the two cartridges would be.

Similarly, all the Howell cartridges can be loaded to hotter velocities and higher peak pressures than I designed them for. But that's for the individual handloaders of these cartridges to decide for themselves � whether a smidgen more muzzle velocity is worth more to them than longer barrel life. Longer accuracy life for the barrel is integral to the design philosophy behind these cartridges. It isn't the only purpose behind these designs, of course, but it=s important to many of us.

Some eagle-eyed soul is sure to notice in the Sierra manual that the test rifles had a 22-inch barrel on the .300 Savage and a 26-inch barrel on the .30-06. All right, duly noted � but that difference in barrel lengths is not enough to account for all the velocity gains in the submaximum .30-06 loads (as much as 300 ft/sec gain in velocity with H-380).

The .220 Howell � Ed Plummer's only hunting interest is big game, so he knew nothing about the increasing popularity of varmint-shooting and had no idea of the market for good varmint rifles and cartridges. As an old varmint-shooter since the 1940s, I did indeed have a good sense of what he'd gain by adding a good varmint cartridge and rifle to his proposed line of big-game cartridges and rifles. So I campaigned hard for a .224 AHR rifle and super varmint cartridge. The general characteristics of a super .224 cartridge had been strong in my mind for a long, long time.

Ever since my introduction in 1951 or 1952 to Jerry Gebby's "Varminter," his trade-marked name for his .22-.250, his neat little cartridge has been one of my favorites for shooting varmints. I've owned several .22-.250s as well as other .224 center-fires through the years and used them on Pennsylvania and Virginia woodchucks and on prairie dogs and gophers in several western states. But I've always yearned for longer, heavier .224 bullets and slower powders that would make an even more muscular .224 varmint cartridge feasible. By the time I was knuckle-skulling the new Howell big-game cartridges, .224 bullets longer and heavier than the old 55-grain had become prominent on the market. Canister powders slower than the .22-.250's favorite propellants, very attractive for a new .224 varmint cartridge, had also become familiar choices for handloaders.

So the .220 Howell, my answer to my own long yearning, took shape around the Hornady 75-grain A-Max bullets (which, I do solemnly swear, look like they can do a hundred feet a second just sitting in a box on the shelf) and IMR-7828 powder. At that time, I had not heard or read of the Belgian powders imported by Western Powders and sold under their Ramshot label. The Ramshot powder formerly labeled Big Boy and now called Magnum appears to be as good as IMR-7828 in the .220 Howell and possibly a bit better. Alliant's Reloder 25 looks good, too, but I haven't tried it yet. And of course IMR-7828 does well in this cartridge.

The .220 Howell is my answer to my own long-time yearning for a .224 cartridge better suited than the .22-.250 or the .220 Swift for shooting varmints at long ranges on the windy northern plains, where the inevitable strong cross-winds handicap shooters as badly as the long distances that drain the velocities of the fastest bullets. Since my stroke in 2001 left me weak, wobbly, and partially paralyzed, I'm "out of it" as far as hunting big game is concerned. So I'm more than ever a varmint-shooter, and the .220 Howell � my long-time dream cartridge � has naturally become my favorite. By all field results so far, it does all that I had in mind for it to do when I designed it. More, even � although I didn't design it for use on anything bigger than a coyote and don't recommend it as a big-game cartridge, a number of hunters report great success with it on deer, antelope, and even elk. I still think that's stretching its capability, but their enthusiastic reports of success are certainly gratifying testimony to the power of the cartridge.

The deservedly famous and excellent .220 Swift is a good bit less roomy than my .220. Its gross case capacity (full to the mouth) is about 47 grains of water. My .220's gross case capacity is about 62 grains of water. The additional space in my .220 allows this cartridge to be loaded with a heavier bullet and a caseful of a slower powder, for a much more efficient long-range trajectory than the Swift can provide with its usually lighter bullets � and its lower peak chamber pressures make it easier on barrels.

Loads that propel the 75-grain Hornady A-Max at about 3,450 to 3,650 ft/sec from the .220 Howell start slower than the Swift's 50-grain factory load (about 3,850 ft/sec), but the much better ballistic coefficient of the 75-grain A-Max enables it to retain more of its velocity longer. The heavier bullet from the .220 Howell and the lighter one (also a Hornady) from the Swift slow to the same down-range velocity at or within 200 yards. Beyond that cross-over distance, the heavier bullet from my .220 flies increasingly faster than the Swift's lighter bullet. And right fresh from the muzzle, it delivers increasingly more energy.

This velocity edge is not so important as velocity itself but for the distinctly flatter trajectory, shorter time of flight, and resulting narrower cross-wind deflection. For long-range shooting, the A-Max's much longer flight at supersonic velocities is also an advantage. It doesn't drop to trans-sonic velocity until about 1,500 yards or more. Clearly, it's still doing its best at the longest practical varmint-shooting distances. In well made rifles, it also groups well enough for persnickety shooters who delight in long shots at small varmints.

Other good bullets for this cartridge are also available from Berger, Sierra, and Nosler, but I haven't tried those yet (don't have as many on hand!).


The .240 Howell � The .240 Howell is one of the cartridges that I added to the list because I knew that as soon as shooters got acquainted with the .300 Howell and its near-neighbors, there'd be a demand � probably small but none the less definite � for a 6mm version to give fans of the 6mm-06 a similarly improved cartridge. So I ginned it up to be ready for that demand when it comes, whether it comes from one shooter or from a crowd.

I have no experience with the .240 Howell, and AHR has not yet had any cases made for it. The best indication of its potential is probably the comparison of its case dimensions and gross capacity with those of the 6mm-06. The gross case capacity of the classic 6mm-06 is probably about 66 grains of water. I'd expect the .240 Howell case to hold about 75 grains of water, full to the mouth of the case.

The edge that this cartridge would offer over the 6mm-06 is the same as what the other long Howell cartridges offer over the proven performances of the classic oldies that inspired them � enough greater powder capacity to enable hunters to load heavier premium bullets with slower powders for lower peak chamber pressures and improved performance on game, without having to opt for a cartridge on a belted magnum case.

The .250 Howell � The classic .25-06 is a great long-range game cartridge just as it is. Before today's slower powders came along, it was the most muscle that you could press into service without unduly truncating the longevity of a good barrel. It's much better with heavier bullets than typical velocity freaks give it credit for. My .250 Howell is my way of increasing the classic .25-06's excellent performance with heavier premium .257 bullets C without hoisting peak chamber pressures to the dangerous, barrel-burning heights that would be necessary to reach this level of down-range performance from the shorter .25-06 case. The gross capacity of the .25-06 � about 66 grains of water � imposes pressure and velocity limits that the greater capacity of my .250 Howell � about 75 grains of water � neatly avoids.

The .260 Howell � Like the other cartridges in this family, compared with the classic oldies that inspired them, the .260 Howell more easily does anything that the capable and justly popular 6.5mm-06 can do, and does it better. The 6.5mm-06's gross case capacity of about 66 grains of water limits it a little, but the gross case capacity of the .260 Howell (about 75 grains of water) retains the typical magazine rifle's cartridge capacity and provides for the use of heavier 6.5mm premium bullets at the velocities that they deserve, without the need for either a belted magnum case or the very erosive higher chamber pressures.


The .270 Howell � The many decades of the classic .270 Winchester's popularity have led many fans of the .270 Winchester to wish for a .270 magnum. An old rumor said that Winchester built one but dropped it without announcing it or producing it. For those who want more oomph from .270 bullets but don't get lumps of longing in their throats for belted cases, I added the .270 Howell to the family. The gross case capacity of the .270 Winchester � about 68 grains of water � is easily increased to about 75 grains of water simply by going to the .270 Howell, without much increase in the over-all length of the cartridge. No belted case is necessary as far as interior ballistics is concerned. (Marketing hype and velocity mania are other considerations altogether!)

As the other mid-caliber Howell cartridges do, the .270 Howell offers the advantages of heavier premium bullets at barrel-friendly moderate peak chamber pressures without sacrificing any of the performance that relies on velocity. And the .270 Howell magazine holds as many rounds as the .270 Winchester magazine holds.

The .280 Howell � Ever since I learned that my friends Charlie O'Neil and Elmer Keith had created the .285 OKH and heard 'em extol its virtues, I've been fond of the 7mm-06 in its several similar forms. I own and cherish a very fine .280 RCBS Improved custom rifle and have long preferred the .280 Remington (the factory-pedigreed version of the original .285 OKH) to either the .270 Winchester or the .30-06 as a general-purpose cartridge for all but the biggest American big game. Now my .280 Howell makes this great cartridge even better. It increases the gross capacity of the factory .280 (about 67.5 grains of water) to about 75 grains, in almost identically the same case. Its performance approaches (some say "equals") that of the belted 7mm magnums. I don't make that claim, but I can tell you that it outshoots even my .280 RCBS Improved � heavy premium hunting bullets, moderate pressures, entirely satisfactory velocities, minimum meat loss.

The .300 Howell � Improving the standard, classic .30-06 without going to a magnum case is not all that easy to do. The late P O Ackley gave it a good try, but my old .30-06 Ackley Improved Springfield sporter didn't give me any discernible edge over my hunting partner's .30-06 Super Grade Model 70 Winchester. In fact, we loaded exactly the same powder charge under the same 220-grain Remington Core-Lokt bullets in both rifles � on my bench, with my powder measure and components, developed in my rifle. Merely increasing the shoulder diameter and steepening the shoulder angle didn't add as much powder capacity as the longer body of the .300 Howell does. My .300 increases the case capacity from about 68 grains to a bit more than 75 grains. That's real improvement!

The .320 Howell � I've never had anything to do with an 8mm-06 but knew of course that it had long been popular with enough hunters to make it worth my while to add the .320 Howell to the family line-up. So here you are, 8mm-06 fans � if you want to improve your 8mm-06 with its gross case capacity of about 70 grains of water, my .320 Howell offers a capacity increase to about 77 grains without having to go to the fatter, belted 8mm Remington Magnum.

The .340 Howell � Until I set forth on this design spree, my two favorites for general-purpose big-game cartridges were the .280 RCBS Improved and its near-twin, the .338-06 RCBS Improved. Back in 1955, deciding on the cartridge for the one big-game rifle that I assumed would be my only one ever, I seriously considered the .33 brainchild of my friends Charlie O'Neil and Elmer Keith (their .333 OKH) and dropped it in favor of the .35 Whelen only because there was just one jacketed bullet available for the .333 OKH. Then Winchester brought-out the .338 Winchester Magnum, and a good selection of .338 component bullets made the .338-06 a very satisfying descendant of the .333 OKH.

The gross case capacity of the 338-06 (about 69 grains of water) still makes it an excellent big-game cartridge, of course � but the .340 Howell's gross capacity of about 78 grains makes an even better .338 cartridge. One of my friends has used it to make an impressive number of one-shot kills on dangerous African game, including Cape buffalo. (Quite illegally, to be sure � but he died after his last trip to Africa, so he's beyond the reach of trouble for using "too small" a cartridge over there.) He said that its performance was indistinguishable from that of his .338 Winchester Magnum.

The .350 Howell � For several decades, my Iver Henriksen .35 Whelen Mauser was my king of big-game rifles. In time, I came to favor my .338 RCBS, but not because of any short-coming of the .35 Whelen. Its gross case capacity (a tad over 70 grains of water) still makes it one of the best cartridges for even the biggest American game, so the even greater gross capacity of my .350 Howell (about 79 grains of water) makes this member of my cartridge family hard to top without going to a much larger case.

The .380 Howell � Along with the .338 and the .358 calibers, the .375 was one of the calibers that Ed Plummer especially wanted me to design an "ultimate" '06-based cartridge for. I think it may have been his personal preference among the three. As a direct result of making the case a bit longer than the 2.494 inches of the .30-06, I was able to increase the gross case capacity of the .375 AWhelen@ (about 74 grains) to more than 80 grains (about 82 grains in some cases).

This cartridge is another member of my cartridge family that has delivered fully satisfactory performance on dangerous African game � which strikes me as an outstanding confirmation of the power of the cartridge, considering that its intended use was for American big game only.

The .400 Howell � Shooters' interest in recent years has shown that the old .400 Whelen is not as dead as most of us thought that it was. It has always been a good big-game cartridge and never deserved the bad name that evolved from early writers' false claim that it has too slight a shoulder for reliable headspacing. As Elmer Keith told me over half a century ago, the .400 Whelen headspaces very reliably if you fire-form your brass first and don't ruin the shoulder when you resize the case. Its intolerance for sloppy case-forming has never kept it from being an excellent cartridge for the biggest American game. Its huge bullet diameter and weight, however, cry out for more powder capacity than the standard-length .30-06 case can provide.

Recognizing that any demand for a .400 Howell would be very slight at best, I still wanted it to be there, ready and available to any .40 fan who wanted it. I urged Ed Plummer to make no brass and load no ammo for the .400 Howell but instead offer a .400 Howell rifle only as a special-order option, to be packaged with a box or two of basic cylindrical cases and a set of .400 Howell dies. By necking his own supply of Howell Basic cases down to form .400 Howell cases, the handloader would form a definite shoulder that would be fully adequate for reliable headspacing in his rifle.

I have no real idea what the gross capacity of either the .400 Whelen or the .400 Howell would be, but my version offers a good bit more powder capacity to make this .40 cartridge even more of a serious big-game cartridge than the field-tested and thoroughly proven .400 Whelen that Elmer Keith loved.

The Howell Basic Case � The Howell Basic case is essentially cylindrical, with no shoulder. My design specifies a total length of 2.600 inches, but the few early specimens that I have are a bit longer (2.700 inches). It's available for any handloader who wants to form any of this Howell family of cartridges. I haven't looked into the possibility, but it may make a pretty good .444 cartridge just as it is. Last time I checked, factory-new Howell Basic cases were available at www.huntingtons.com.

Which reminds me � anyone who wants a rimmed version of any of these Howell cartridges, for better functioning in a single-shot or lever-action rifle, can form his cases from .400-.350 Nitro Express brass.

You won't be the first if you wonder or ask what I'm getting out of all this, since I get neither any royalties on these cartridges nor any commissions from AHR � not a cent of income from any of it so far or foreseeable, and quite a bit of personal expense to get, equip, and feed my .220 Howell rifles. First of all, I haven't been doing this for monetary gain at any point along the way, so the lack of income from it is in no way disappointing to me. I designed these cartridges primarily to give my fellow hunters a few better options. I'm happy that they're out there for you if you hanker for any of them. If any of them makes your covet bone itch, scratch it with my sincere approval and blessing. I hope it will give you many years of satisfaction and pleasure.

I designed only one of these cartridges for myself, the hot .220 Howell, which I also intended for other varmint-shooters taking long shots at small targets on the windy northern plains.

Several of my friends and others now hunt with Howell cartridges � some with AHR rifles, some with custom rifles. The many enthusiastic reports of their satisfaction and success continue to make me feel mighty good about what I've done here. Some of my friends are shooters whom I've met through their interest in my cartridges. I have a very nice .220 Howell rifle myself. New and well satisfied friends. A nice varmint rifle. Who needs money to tell him that he's done something worth while? Not me.

I'm well paid.

Thank you. Very informative. Safed for reference.

Very cool

Thank you Sir.

Ken do you know who has or where a guy can find a reamer for the .220 Howell?

WOW, you are simply amazing Ken.

Thomas,....I think we should talk to David Kiff, at Pacific Precision, He makes one heck of a good tool, and TO PRINT.

.....Dennis would be a good centrally based custodian / keeper for the thing. I've go a LARGE spectrum of .22 bushings in teentsy .0001 increments to throw in / loan out, as needed.

NICE cartridge for this open country hereabouts.

THANKS KEN !

GTC

Ken,

Thank you very much for sharing your wealth of knowledge and expertise with us.

I have a spare Ruger #1 action and I am thinking a rimmed .240 Howell loaded with 105gr Amax would make a nice Antelope combo.

I have a Dave Kiff rougher and finisher but don't know where they are.

Best bet would be to have Dave (www.pacifictoolandgauge.com) make another set. He's the best that there is, now that Red Elliot is gone.

I assume that he still has my drawing, but if he doesn't, I can send you or him another one. I think that Hartmut may have included it in the latest QuickLOAD, too.

Somebody with a healthy Brink's cargo or an equivalent lottery stash can acquire my super-fancy Nesika with 26-inch bench-rest barrel, Kepplinger set trigger, 32x Weaver, dies, 6,000 A-Max bullets, and 100 head-stamped AHR cases. I wouldn't be interested in a swap for a yacht. (I don't charge for letting friends drool near it.)

I'm sure they'd be willing to take investors.

That's an amazingly ambitious project in it's overall scope, it's gonna take some moola for sure.

I also have a nice .340 Howell built on a Montana action by a well known Campfire rifle-maker. With brass and reamers. Custom dies. Sizer die needs a reworked reamer (sizer sizes necks too large in diameter to grip bullets � such are the vicissitudes of cartridge development, at times).

Test loads seated bullets in cases neck-sized to proper diameter in .338 Winchester Magnum die.

Greg Richards has just reminded me that when he returned my .220 Howell reamer, I immediately lent it to somebody else. I haven't the faintest glimmer of a recollection who that was. That was years ago, and no word of it has come bouncing back. No telling where it's lying forgotten, covered with dust.

Ahhhhh, borrowers!

Ken, THANKS again for the last book you sent, I'm brainstorming a "Collimation table" to apply the knowledge garnered therefrom.

If you can get a .220Howell DWG over to me, I'll get things going with our esteemed Mr. Kiff.

Heck, Man,....he should have the whole SERIES of DWGs on file !

Best regards,

Greg

Thanks Ken.

This is what I have on it.
.473 base of course, but its not noted in the image for some reason. I'd wager if Kiff did the rougher and finisher that Ken had he likely still has the prints for it too.

Tata,

Anymore info on that 250 Howell? I have developed a thing for .257 calibers.

Kique

+1

Great designs Ken.

Great designs!

I got all fired up when those came out. I had plans for a .340.

The family makes so much more sense than the WSM's.

When AHR ended up going with CZ actions instead of Model 70's I ended up keeping my .338 Win. and .35 Whelens as they were.

I got close though. I have an AHR stock on closeout from McMillan and put it on my .338 Model 70.

btt for a good read

Before you ask �

I don't share my load data, and I don't have load data for all my cartridges, anyway.

Start carefully from intelligent scratch.

QuickLOAD helps if you use it right. The latest version has some (maybe all) of these Howell cartridges. The bullet list is disappointingly short, though.

The first thing that I do is to see what QuickLOAD suggests is proably the optimum powder for my chosen bullet seated to specified depth in that case � 90�100% case fill, 49,000�50,000 lb/sq in. peak pressure. You might have to mike your chosen bullet to enter it onto the bullet menu. No big deal, that. Heck, I've done it!

By the time when that bunch of us gathers at Quemado Lake this summer (13�15 July), I expect to have the clutter behind my computer chair shuttled-off to another midden, so there'll be room for someone to look over my shoulder at some performance comparisons on the computer.

Looking forward to it.

Haven't sent 'em all yet, but I've begun with the specs for four of these Howell cartridges (.220, .240, .250, .260 so far � others later).

E-mailed 'em to Greg and will, over time, send 'im all of 'em.

So if you want a reamer made for your choice of the Howell family of AHR cartridges, you can get the specs from Greg. (I expect him to be around a while longer than I hope to be!)

Ken,

If Greg doesn't stop chasing Chupacabras around in the dark with a sharp stick, he might not be!

Ed

Don't worry 'bout Greg!

His sharp stick is deadlier than his spatula.

What cartridges have similar capacity?

Engineers don't usually speak "similar".

Haven't checked.

No other with unbelted or no oversized cases, I'm sure.

Don't consider capacity to be their only attribute worth considering.

You do mention it though, so it's not totally irrelevant.
Just trying to get a feel for capabilities.

I found some interesting pics today whilst googling...

.243 Win Vs. .220 Howell on the right
I am assuming that is likely the 75gr Amax shown as loaded?


35 Whelen Vs. .350 Howell


.338-06 Vs. .340 Howell


.375-06 Vs. .380 Howell


.270 Win Vs. .270 Howell


.30-06 Vs. .300 Howell

Gosh, that's going 'way back! (But still interesting.) Here's one o' my old posts from a passel o' years ago �



Sure glad that I didn't hafta type all that guff all over again!

Man that's pretty sweet stuff there.

Thank you Ken.
That was a very interesting read. Made my night shift go that much faster

Have access to 60 quarters of land north of Moonshine Lake in the Peace Country (Saddle Hills). Was asked to help thin the wolf/coyote population. .220 and 240 Howells' sound like just the ticket.
Oh yeah, we have a $500 bounty on wolves up here!

Keith, would be nice to see you at the party.

Later....

A gun-writer friend of mine urged Remington to adopt my .220 Howell � a varmint cartridge in lieu of yet another big-game cartridge, as everybody expected. That notion suited me right down to my socks 'n' garters, so I talked to the appropriate Remington wheeze and sent all the pertinent data to Remington. Asked nothing for 'em, ne'er a nickel, not even public acknowledgement.

Got a "nondisclosure agreement" form � filled it out and signed it � sent it back. Might as well have dropped a feather down a well � ne'er a sound.

Inquired a couple of years later.

"Yeah, we could've done it," the Remington guy said, "but � ."

(Translation � "It wasn't our idea.")

So they introduced yet another Remington loser.

Never did anything with the .240 Howell, and AHR never had any brass made for it, as far as I know. You can neck-down and fire-form .270 Winchester or .280 Remington brass but will have a slightly shorter neck than my specs call for.

A tad less than a caseful of VihtaVuori N570 should, I suppose, boot a 107-grain Sierra out the front end of a 26-inch barrel at about 3,000 or more ft/sec and not give a wolf time to hate you for it.

Haven't checked.

Capacity varies with caliber. I haven't measured 'em all, so all that I can give you are the estimated gross capacities for the smallest and the largest �

.220 Howell � about 62 grains of water
.380 Howell � about 82� grains of water
.400 Howell � haven't calculated that one yet � would guess maybe 85�90 grains of water, gross

I've sent Greg my old drawings for all the family of Howell cartridges based on modified .30-06 brass, for him to do with 'em as he wishes.

I haven't acquired the knack of sending 'em by PM but will send any by e-mail attachment if you send me your e-mail address.

(No charge unless the demand demands it.)

The new owner of AHR, Wayne Jacobson, seems to have abandoned the Howell family of cartridges, to limit the AHR selection to the bigger-the-better stuff. This seems to be AHR's bailiwick now �



(You oughta have no trouble guessing what's turning me green!)

Have ogled Ken's very special rifle in .220 Howell. It looks wonderful.

Wish I had some ammo for it � to let the droolers at the Lake shoot it this summer.

Have brass, primers, bullets, and all the necessary gear but no set-up. And I think that I let some ol' Campfart have my jug of Ramshot Magnum. So we'll all just hafta be satisfied with its beauty � and its set trigger.

Ken, why don't we whip some up when I come to visit next month? I need to return a certain piece of reloading kit that was in that Kennedy box that I did NOT intend to bring home, and it should work just fine for putting some loads together.

Ed

Just a thought of course. But how hard would it be to rechamber a 25-06 to .250 Howell? How much performance would one gain?
Same question with 243 to .240 Howell?
Just curious

Kique

Rechambering would be a simple job with a finish reamer and a head-space gauge � but the twist might not be right for the Howell cartridge's best bullets.

With appropriate twists, the gains in performance should be substantial � well worth the trouble and expense � as the result of (a) substantially more powder and (b) substantially better bullets. (And probably with slower powders for a more gradual increase in propulsion.)

Substantially improving a cartridge involves more than just dimensions.

On that note what twist did you have in mind with the .220 Howell?
I would think that with the design centered on the the 75gr Amax it would be 1-8" but it could go 1-7" to use some of other heavier bullets around now too.
What are your thought Ken?

The Greenhill formula calls for an eight-inch twist with the 75-grain A-Max, but Greg Richards assured me that a nine-inch twist would be better � so I went with a nine-inch twist in my last .220 Howell. Don't remember what I had in the first two � probably eight-inch.

Remember, a barely stabilized bullet goes farther faster than an over-stabilized bullet.

I bet that berger 115 vld with the high bc would be magic in that round. Somewhere between 06 and roy correct?

1-8" sounds like the ticket then.

Estimated gross case capacities �
.25-06 � 66 grains of water, gross
.250 Howell � 72 grains of water, gross � six grains more than .25-06, twelve grains less than Weatherby
.257 Weatherby Magnum � 84 grains of water, gross

Less kick too! I want one. Time to research and see what i can sell. Then gotta find brass. I didnt see any on the website you posted.

You'll hafta make your own � neck-down and fire-form .270 Winchester brass with pistol powder and an inert filler, and settle for the slightly shorter neck.

Kique that is another reason I am leaning heavy towards the .220 Howell
Being a case of 2.400" I can simply size .25-05 preferably or even .270 to get brass.

Best use for .270 brass I can think of!

Ed

ONLY use for .270 brass I will ever have

Tom, neither .25-06 nor .270 Winchester brass will form into .220 Howell brass in one pass. You'll hafta massage the shoulder back first, with
� an 8mm Mauser sizer die first, to begin
then
� a 7mm Mauser die backed-off (I forget how much � about a tenth of an inch, IIRC)
then
� form finally in .220 Howell sizer
and
� trim to length

Probably hafta ream the inside of the neck, too.

Got plenty of Imperial sizing-die wax? See Redding � http://www.redding-reloading.com/online-catalog/79-imperial-lubricants

It's the best that there is.

A little dab'll do ya.

Well, .270 brass turns into excellent cases for my 6.5:06 in one step with no fuss - and there is A LOT of giveway .270 brass around. Ever try STP for case lube?

Thanks for the tips Ken, I always appreciate your help and wisdom.
I knew it would need a bit of tinkering to get brass formed since the shoulder is further back than either the .25-06 or the .270
I figure with mild pressures and neck sizing 200 cases would last quite a while. What I really like though is that being under the length of the .30-06 Vs. slightly over as in the bigger of the Howell family of rounds I wouldn't be reliant on a single source of brass.
I don't envision it being a rifle that would see a lot of rounds at a single sitting from me either.

I have two unopened cans of STP in my garage as we speak.

I'm partial to Imperial Sizing Die wax, so if someone at the Quemado Lake gathering would like it, I will toss it into the pile.

Ed

Anyone who likes something else better than Imperial has probably never tried it. It's like what the senior Crossman wrote about departing from the Mauser action � it's like leaving the North Pole � the only way to go is south.

My first lube in 1952 was the pesky, sticky RCBS goo (STP?). Later, Fred Huntington sent me some anhydrous lanolin (lots better). Since then, I've used just about all of 'em � a lot more of 'em than I can remmber � Hodgdon's red stuff, several sprays (anhydrous lanolin in some rapidly evaporating carrier or other), et alii.

Bob LeClear retired 'em all with his Imperial sizing-die wax. It's the "North Pole" or "North Star" of case lubes.

Amen to that!

I see where Redding is advertising the Imperial Sizing Die Wax in its' original formula, including the green tint.

I also use the Imperial Dry Neck Lube. Messy if you spill it, but good stuff!

Ed

Using a fired, unsized case with a sharp mouth as a cutter, I used to cut "cookies" of thick felt, punch a hole in the center, and put 'em on the decapping punch, just above the threaded ferrule that holds the decapping pin. A dab of Imperial sizing-die wax would lube a passel of case necks before that felt washer would need a fresh dab.

With Imperial, you don't have to lube every fired case.

Dave LeGate set-out to see how many fired 9mm Parabellum cases he could size after lubing just one with Imperial.

Chickened-out after nine.

I generally avoided doing more than four or five on one wipe.

A little dab'll do ya.

Any more questions or comments, guys, before I put this one away for the night � and probably for good?

Hey all,

I was looking for '06 basic brass, (didn't know Jamison was out of business!), and found that http://www.z-hat.com/Cylinder.htm has some for sale.

Hope this helps bring some Howell cartridges back to life!

Later....
Edit to add, ARH has basic brass for up to .380 Howell at pretty reasonable prices.

Ken - Thanks for the posting. I've always wondered about the history of these fine cartridges.

Ken - in your original posting you said "Belted cases, at comparable peak chamber pressures, increase back-thrust force on breech lock-ups." as part of the reason for the cartridges based on the 30-06 case.

I assume that you are referring to the case head diameter (belted cartridges have larger diameter heads) rather than the fact that it is belted. Would not a non-belted (fat) case of the same diameter produce the same bolt thrust at the same pressure?

Veddy interested in the quarter bore version......

Ken

Thank you for the write up.

You have my mind going in several directions right now.

What do you think optimum barrel length would be? (Let's say for the 260)

With the longer case and optimally for the heavy for caliber bullet, will a standard length action acomodate the family of cartridges?

Thanks again.

Dave

BTT since its a great read.

Wonder if any custom rifle makers would be interested in bringing this family back to life?

Good read and I'm really interested in a 6.5 version.

I was able to fire a few rounds of .220 Howell last weekend and agree that it is indeed an intriguing round. I may have to Kiff grind me a reamer.

Unless you treat it as what it was designed to be, you're in for some unpleasant surprises. It's both less than and more than just another hot cartridge. The cartridge and the rifle are an ensemble, both integral elements of an exercise in reasoned design.

Come by some time, and I'll run-off a set of spec drawings that you can send to Dave Kiff.

Thanks Ken, appreciate the information.

Dan

I think I can make it work for something. I can't see using it as a PD round due to the work involved making brass. Would like to put one together just to play though. Tossing around the idea of having a 220 Howell only match! There are a lot of really good slow powders these days that might make it easy to sing. I read where you intended to limit the pressure somewhat and that makes the Ramshot powder not the ideal choice as it likes to run hot- like 65,000 PSI. Plenty of other slow burners out there to try- Mag Pro and R33 for starters.

Looks like the Powder angles covered,.....

What about BRASS, and getting that heretofor irritating little detail sorted out ?

GTC

Right now I'm working on a Mauser action to match up with a gifted/used .220 Howell barrel that I'm hoping will do justice to the cartridge design. Recent experiences with a very fine .220H rifle hint that getting the brass correct will be the bigger challenge. So, am thinking on that aspect - and looking forward to the day. Dennis idea sounds like fun - so would like to get it all sorted out by August. But, not much time left.

So using Mr. Barsness's rule on case capacity increase what velocity do the Howell rounds provide over the base round? For my 338-06 that throws the 210 Partition quite easily to 2750 fps, the Howell will give ~60 fps more? Is this what has been observed?

He designed the case with barrel life in mind I guess. Only wants it run at 50,000 or so. With a 26" barrel, 3600 fps with a 75 grain Amax is the gold standard. I'm sure with Mag Pro and R33 3600 FPS can be exceeded but who knows how those bullets will hold up at that velocity. I am going to build one and see what I get. Will probably make my neck .001-.002" bigger than the specs show for ease of brass use. Not sure yet though. As is, factory brass cannot be safely fired in the chamber made by the original reamer.

The creep has crept as far as he can creep, compa�eros.

I've gone as far with this as I can go. Better minds than mine are taking-over.

I look forward to their improvements.

Very interesting thread. Thank you Ken.

Didn't Joe's ammo work, as the designer intended, in Joe's rifle?


Didn't Joe tell you why this is so?

The factory brass wasn't made to the specifications that were integral to the original design. (Bruce took it on himself to "improve" something that didn't need his "improvements.") But Joe diligently made some of those cases work safely � with muzzle velocities very close to predicted and very small groups (as small as 0.291 inch, right?). What now needs super-guru-expert remedial attention to improve that performance?

When the ammo factories go to load a cartridge, they first set a maximum average peak pressure that for the sake of safety from liability suits they don't plan to go beyond. Then they use whatever powder will about fill the case and won't produce more than that pressure.

That box of .30-30, that box of .30-40, and that box of .45-70 on the gun-shop shelf may be destined to come to life in Ruger No. 1s, but you can be sure that they'll be loaded to be safe in 94s, Krags, and trap-doors. Definitely lower pressures, irrespective of what those powders are capable of producing in other cartridges and stronger breeches.

Take a look at what SAAMI says � http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm

Thus the powder pantry is full of stuff that may well "burn better" at significantly higher pressures. In the low-pressure cartridges, they do the jobs that are assigned to 'em.

Performance is what counts, not theoretical neatness or purity.





When Joe Louis fought (IIRC) Billy Conn, a number of our bigoted friends in Appalachia felt that Joe'd been champ "long enough" � that it was time for us to have a new (white) champ. They weren't happy when Louis knocked Conn out in about the thirteenth round.

"If Louis hadn't knocked him out," one of my pro-Conn friends said heatedly, "Conn woulda won!"

Conn was indeed ahead on points, but the KO trumped 'em all.

The rifle that Joe has is the third prototype. The first two were disappointing � twists way too tight. Bullets blew-up just ahead of the muzzle. Puffs of gray nothing.

The Greenhill equation called for a seven-inch or eight-inch twist � obviously too tight, as totally unsatisfactory field performance showed all too clearly.

So with this third one, I swallowed hard, screwed my daring down white-knuckle tight, and had Greg rifle it for one turn in nine inches.

Joe's results seem to justify the risk. (I wonder, of course, how stable these bullets will remain at loooooooooooong ranges.)

I was just a kid then - since have watched that contest more than once (old film). Conn was noticeably smaller - a light-heavyweight - but a better boxer who made Louis pay for 12 rounds (today's championship length). Then Louis finally nailed Conn with a heavy bomb - maybe like the 75g AMAX at 3600++ fps?

I'd bet that 1-9" works great even waaay out there. My .223AI is a 1-9". Even with the .223AI's significantly lower speed the 75gr AMAX flys true as far as I have ever shot.

IIRC, the hundreds of cases that I gave Joe are from two production runs, months or more apart � which gave Bruce a second run at "improving" the first batch.

IIRC, he said that he'd made the head of the case stronger � how, I don't know.

Those cases are probably "right on" in exterior dimensions and vary all over the place in interior dimensions.

In all my computer simulations, I've used an onager estimation of gross capacity.

I'd like to see what that cartridge can do with selected cases carefully formed and trimmed from good .25-06 brass.

By the bye, Paul � without looking it up, do you know Joe Louis's real surname?

HINT � it wasn't "Louis." That was his middle name � Joe Louis ****** � his mama didn't want him to be boxing, so he used a "stage" name to keep her from knowing what he was doing.

IIRC, the .303 British won its great reputation for its long-range stability by staggering around all over the place before it "went to sleep" and delivered the bacon way out there.

Yeah - knew it even then - Joe Louis Barrow. And another guy that beat up on Louis for a while - Jersey Joe Walcott - was born and raised as Arnold Cream. Best fighter I ever saw in person was Sugar Ray Robinson - and his real name was Walker Smith. I saw him on a train between Philly and NYC once and. although he was fighting at 160 lbs. at the time, he had to be almost 6 ft. tall and looked BIG.

Maybe like a .220H - possibly performs bigger than it is?

Yeah, but that's probably because of those pink nipples.

I would too,.......let's get the hell outta' blind alleys and quit azzing around with off spec brass !

* Find a COMMONLY available lot of brass,.......in 25-06, and FORM some .220 Howell

The numbers and the reamer I've got in front of me say this will WORK.

Still WAITING for a callout on what aggragate neck thicknesses look like on the "hassle brass"

....guess everybody's too busy extrapolating, and designing another reamer, to actually sit down and MEASURE some necks.

We're not building a space shuttle here, boys.

GTC

Joe's loads in his .220 Howell have already shown that to be so.

Documented.

In the presence of witnesses.

The next step, I think, is to cajole RCBS, Hornady, Forster, or Redding to produce forming dies for making .220 Howell cases from good .25-06 brass.

....and FWIW, I'll BET that if I had that set of custom dies that accompanied the 3rd prototype that I could have some brass that properly fits that chamber up and running in no time flat.

At this point, using the term "factory brass" seems more than a bit odd.

To my knowledge nobody's even TRIED working some 25-06 yet.

So, we don't really KNOW, ....do we ?

GTC

GTC

I'm not getting any real feedback on that.

Good to hear, though.

GTC

)

Two or three passes on ANNEALED necks would be my own call,
.....real Imperial Wax, this time, NO substitutes.

GTC

Was done to quite an extent last weekend - brass inconsistency determined for certain, and so inconsistent as to disable any generality report. Did see some developed inner/outer neck dimensions that worked in that one chamber, and the rifle itself seemed excellent.

Predicting that one will be a very fine shooter of the 75g. Even with less than optimum conditions/setup and a first-squeeze shooter (me, on that VERY light set trigger), it sat right down close to zero point. I don't think that one was chrono'ed. Sure adnire that beautiful rifle.

Once I get the working .220H rifle set up, intend to start from a good .25/06 case and form to .220H. Won't start that until I have the rifle ready. Also will see what can be done in THAT chamber with some of this Bertram - but re-working that brass may prove not worth the time/effort.

Fun to be working with a cartridge designed by a friend - even if the guy who made the custom brass wandered from design specs.

Kinda like calling Moochelle "the First Lady."


IIUC, Joe did a pretty good job making vinyl purses out of Bruce Bertram's sow's ears. I'm pretty sure that his final renditions are pretty close to what we'd get with form dies and selected .25-06 brass.

I think I'll take a die blank and cut a chamber in it with the reamer here,....then dink the top end of it around to accept bushings. A good Chro-Mo die will make THOUSANDS of cases , without being hardened, if the process is kept reasonably clean.

and , yup, it IS fun.

GTC

I do believe you are on the right track. I have made bushing dies and stepped necks down it two steps with great successes in the past when taking 6BR to 22BR.

I'm going to cut the die here, ....and than see if I can't coerce Bristoe into fitting the bushing end, he'll have access to better tolerances on his end.

Wilson Bushings ?

I've done more than a few for big straightwalled coal burners, but never for a BN case.

Do the bushings "Float", or are we talking real serious fitup ?

GTC

I used the Redding TIN coated but have also used carbide drill bushings. For necking down a little floating works well. the rounded edges on the bushings will center the operation. I don't see why you could not do it yourself plenty well enough to float a bushing .010 or so.

In my hand dies for loading I locked the bushings in with a light slip fit.

Another thing, for just sizing down necks anything will do. Stressproof, or 12L14 turn real easy. For loading dies I might try cutting some Ferro-Tic and sending it to heat treat. After polishing you would have a carbide die that will last longer than any of our grandkids will be around.

Will break radio silence and add on my observations with 220 Howell in the Richards/Nesika.

As mentioned the batch of Bertram brass in my possession needed a bit of fiddling with. It has to be full-length sized (with the shellholder touching the die) to even fit into the chamber. I thought at first they were also too long, but subsequent checks reveal this chamber will accept cases over the 0.240" spec.

The necks are thick, so much so that cases fired with a moderate load will not accept a bullet. I have experimented with giving them an inside neck reaming before sizing and this seems to work. I have a precision/benchrest outside neck turner enroute and will give that a try as soon as it arrives.

Greg, the cases I sent you are of course from this batch and you should be able measure them. My caliper mic does not work all that well for this.

These cases also show up to a 6-grain variation in weight in any given handful. I will be sorting them later on.

The good news is that it performs as advertised - launches high BC bullets at reasonable speeds with moderate pressure. I have been using moderate loads of MagPro, Ramshot Magnum and 7828ssc and have had good results with all of them. These are calculated to be in the 50-55K psi range and were all in the 3300 to 3500 fps range. I have resisted the urge to hotrod this, but there can be no doubt there is more on top.

If anyone is interested in detailed results, drop me a PM.

I have gotten sub-0.300" groups with this outfit off a wobbly Varmintmaster bench, using a 4.5x14 Leupold with B&C reticle and old eyes. Hard to say what it would do in the hands of a better shooter.

I've made some .220 Howell cases from .25-06 brass.

Takes more than one step. (One step just shortens the case to 2.4 inches with a very wrinkled upper body.)

� An 8x57mm sizer massages the outside of the shoulder down. (1.8230 from the face of the bolt)
� A 7x57mm sizer backed-off about a tenth of an inch massages the upper shoulder down to where the base of the neck is going to be. (2.0250 from the bolt face)
� The .220 Howell sizer and a trim to 2.4000 finish the job. (Neck-turning? Maybe. I don't remember, yea or nay.)

Some of you are aware of this, but AHR stocks headstamped 220 Howell brass for what seems a reasonable price. This is from Bertram, and may or may not be any better than the stuff I have. It is sort of a wash - buy this and mess with it or go through the do-it-yourself operation.

Every time I discuss a possible future 220 Howell shoot-out with Paul and Dennis, I smell fear.

I s'pose the misery's about the same either way � whether you make Bruce's head-stamped abominations shootable or make your own cases from scratch.

Me, I'd rather convert good .25-06 brass � especially if RCBS, Hornady, Redding, or Forstner will make form dies available.

(Either way, as a senility salad, I'm out of it � so y'all carry-on!)

I noticed that, FWIW, Quality Cartridge is planning to run both .240 Hawk and 6mm-06 cases sometime this year. YMMV, of course. perhaps they'd work a little better than .25-06 cases?

I also learned that Midway has a single box of .22 Neidner brass on hand. Also FWIW, YMMV, just in case you have a .22 Neidner

Love the two first steps / shoulder bump.

From there STILL pretty firm about using 3 steps (incremental) to final Neck Od.

NO turning,....REAM

There is NO WAY that you'll get the quality produced by running this fairly simple and straightforward evolution outta the Bertram stuff I've got here,.....

Couple or four cases are nowhere NEAR what's needed by way of a quantity to even bother genning up a neck wall thickness spreadsheet.

Hell 100 cases is pretty lean, as regards that little stunt.

...then there's this little " redesigned for Stronger bases" imp flitting about in the wings.As some of you know I've got a little eye / hands on in that curiculum.

Little too squirrelly, this 'Factory brass"

I'd chit can ALL of that stuff, myself.

Semper re-formed 20-06

Tex, the brass you mentioned may be a whisker short, or JUST long enough. The 25-06's little extra COAL smiles on this basic re-forming operation,....in the time the main perps have spent wringin' this out, we could have made 10,000 reformed PERFECT cases.

GTC

GTC

There's more to consider than dimensions, of course. The continuum of hardnesses as shown in the lower left drawing on page 17 of my cartridge book is at least as important as the inches. Quality Cartridge's stuff may be good. I just don't know.

And of course I hafta wonder why 6mm-06 brass might be preferable to .25-06 brass.





That's Niedner, by the away, not "Neidner" (if it's safe to assume that the old guy knew how to spell his own name).

And it's NEED-ner, not NIGHd-ner.

Greg, study the lower left drawing on page 60 of my cartridge book and tell me what and why you find in error there.

Keep in mind that as a functional part of the breech, the case is simultaneously
� a gas gasket sealing the breech
� a capsule (and jig) holding the primer and the powder charge
� a jig to position (ideally) the longitudinal axis of the bullet with the longitudinal axis of the bore

Remember also that cartridge brass, unlike lead, springs back to its "normal" position whenever it's forced slightly away from it then released. The closer that one can form his cases to "perfect" alignment, the better. We certainly don't want an otherwise adequate alignment jig holding its bullet even slightly out of alignment with the center line of the bore.

Thanks - Midway has it spelled Neidner on their site, and I copied their spelling.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/92...2-neidner-box-of-20?cm_vc=ProductFinding

My thought on the 6mm-06 brass was that it would be worked a little less than the .25-06 brass in necking down, and might give less trouble with neck thickness.

Of course, I confess I haven't done any severe case reforming, since the time I made .22-250's out of .308's

So no one has real chronographed data?

Well, Greg, your evaluation of the capabilities of this brass has given me some serious inferiority pangs. My plan is to sort this, get a true capacity measure like the big (benchrest) boys do, give it my best amateur efforts and hope/pray for better results. I expect better groups very soon.


But -- I am quite sure you can do much better, so when/if your brass is up and playing and actually a fact, send me some and I will do my best to evaluate it. If it can make better groups in my rifle than this re-habbed, rebuilt stuff I have, I will publicly tip my hat to you.

Time to walk the walk, amigo - Cheers, Joe

NO, Joe's brass [ammo] was not safe without neck turning or reaming first. It also had to be full length resized before it could chamber. A fired case would not accept a bullet. Period. I don't think this is acceptable for a hunting rifle and not acceptable for a target rifle unless you carefully turn every neck to exacting dimensions so that you can seat bullets without resizing- certainly very advanced handloading technique. If I want to use AHR brass as it is, I have to make some changes to the chamber. Bertram did not get it right apparently.


I typed this before I read the rest of the responses after Ken's comment about Joe's brass working. I am going to make some brass from 25-06 and see how it turns out before I dink with the reamer specs. IF I were to use AHR brass, I would have to either neck turn it or use a bigger chamber or both. As a rule, I don't like to full-length resize new brass before I load it. It should fit.

I cannot find brass for sale on AHR website, only sample rounds that their disclaimer suggests they should never be fired. Kind of a dumb company I think.

Well - Dennis and I don't even HAVE a .220H, and there are none to buy - so fear is far off. A lot of work and prep to do.

And, that's a fabulous rifle Joe - it would take some great work to beat you. But - aaahh - think of the ecstasy if an ant miraculously overcomes a behemoth.

There's another excellent possibility, now that I'm not the only one who's interested in this plaything.

If enough of us can come-up with enough money in guaranteed preproduction sales, maybe we can get my friend "Buzz" Huntington (Fred's son) at www.huntingtons.com to order a run of .220 Howell cases from somebody like Norma or Winchester.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Worth a shot?

I'm in for some, just to get the ball rolling and the fur flying.

Maybe Rick can even be inveigled to make 'em available as an item in the "Outfitter's Gear Shop". He probably makes enough now to keep him in beer and bubble gum, but another profit string won't bother him, I'm sure.

Read my lips � and my written words.

I said "Joe's ammo," not "Joe's brass."

Joe's brass had been neck-reamed and resized before he loaded the ammo that he, you, and Paul shot.

No one has alleged or implied that it was safe without that special treatment.

Wasn't aware that this was a group size event.

Walk the walk on how you're detecting and identifying the pre "stronger case heads" lot,....from 'tother. That text BY DEFINITION indicates that the brass pimp himself acknowledges turning out WEAK cases.

Replicating THAT stunt could see one having to walk with a white cane.

Hey, they're your eyes.

Tip your hat to THAT.

GTC

This

GTC

A very quiet Campfire compa�ero PMed me several months ago about launching a new company to manufacture cartridge brass. At that time, interest in the .220 Howell was moldering in the back woods.

Haven't heard from him in months. Have just PMed him to have a long session with this thread.

Greg, this brass is all over the place weight-wise. I was not aware of the fact that some cases might be of a different design.

I am aware of the fact this warty stuff should probably have been sent back to the maker, but 13 or 14 years have gone by.

My efforts are being directed toward getting what I have as uniform as possible. I have a pretty good supply of once-fired cases by now - these have survived moderate loads and will be blueprinted to my humble specs.

I seriously doubt if you'll hear of me blowing this rifle up.

Dennis, some of the stuff we shot was in fact unreamed and unturned. These were the fired cases that would not accept a bullet. In looking over the chrono results, it appears there is no significant velocity difference between reamed and unreamed brass at low pressures, nor was there any evidence of too-high pressure on the brass. That seems to go against conventional wisdom. One way or the other, I am done experimenting with thick necks. As mentioned, I have a 21st Century outside turner enroute which should help establish actual neck thickness, as it uses a mandrel. Thanks for the advice on that.

On the AHR brass subject, I spoke with Wayne last week and he says he does have 220 in stock. Hey - it even has the proper headstamp

Adios, Joe

Joe, I can cobble up an "Indicator Micrometer" SPECIFIC to measuring your .220 H necks and get it fired off your way within a week. Will use one of several .0001" reading indicators that are laying around on the floor

Having measured brass in the 500s at a time mode looking for a "Bell Curve", whether rim thickness or neck thickness, always found the minimal time it takes to cobble one up well spent.

Will also throw in a "Never" sweat spread sheet with the calibrations interploated into actual thicknesses,....one can measure with one hand, and put the tic marks on the sheet with the other. FAST being the operative word.

Awaiting a launch order, if you're interested in applying / recording /reporting.

GTC

Sounds great - as mentioned, I will take all the help I can get with this stuff.

Time for me to upgrade my micrometer.

You weren't there. READ my text. I said that a bullet would NOT fit back into a fired case. Some of his AMMO had neck reamed brass but only some of it.

My whole point is that the Bertram brass as shipped by AHR cannot be used without considerable work.

If you recall, we found several pieces of brass that had ejector marks in them. This is caused by high pressure, the cause of which we had not determined. It could have been the lack of clearance around the neck. I wanted to fire the same exact load and piece of brass AFTER neck turning it to see if it relieved the pressure in the absence of piezo electric testing we are limited in methods to do this

Has anybody checked the chamber of this rifle to see what the real neck diameter is? I may be just fine for a "fitted neck".

Very interesting thread, in any case. (no pun intended )

I after buying some surplus rifles from a relative I seem to be suddenly awash in sporterized Mausers.

I had been thinking about a fast twist .22-250 AI, but the 220 could work in one of these rifles, too.

With a rather unique, but certainly VIABLE methodology, I HAVE done just that, and KNOW what the reamer used cuts for a finished neck dia.

....it's the Bloody same as what any American .224 standard cartridge neck dia is. certainly not baggy at .257", but in NO way a "Tight necked" chamber.

"Ejector marks" ?

.......BRRRrrrrrrr

Dennis, I recall you showed me a case that had an ejector mark - that was surely an unreamed case. I have since looked all fired cases in direct sunlight (wearing reading glasses) and did not note any major marks - but then I am used to looking at fired Weatherby factory ammo that definitely marks brass.

As mentioned, there is no velocity difference between reamed and unreamed brass. One way or the other, though, I won't be firing any more unmolested (virgin..) brass.

That is good that there are no more marks. Maybe it was just the tight necks at that point.

And it may be that the proven positive potential of the cartridge deserves more than nit-picking around the edges.

My take is that it is a good design, especially the longish neck. I have gotten some very consistent strings and good accuracy. There can be no doubt that it burns lots of powder for a .22

My only squawk is with the brass. Getting it just right appears to be an ongoing project.

That's the ballistic "secret" for getting more velocity from any given barrel length and for any given bullet diameter at acceptable average peak pressures.

Interior ballistics, for all that's factually known about it, is still crammed with elusive mysteries.

One that I ponder a lot �
Very often, a larger powder charge produces both more velocity and more unburnt powder. I have my own theoretical explanation, but I don't know why this happens. If the added powder doesn't burn (produce more propelling gas), how does it increase velocity?

If anybody here really knows how, I'd love to learn!

Ken, I have no scientific basis for this whatsoever (nor any scientific qualifications, for that matter), but thought I'd mention it anyway. Could that extra powder, even though (or maybe especailly because) it doesn't burn, serve to reduce the capacity of the case, thereby upping the pressure/speed? Please be gentle if that is so far off-base that it could be picked off by a pitcher with a lousy move to first.

I think it all burns if loaded correctly. If it doesn't burn then it will leave the barrel filthy. I think if you load a 9mm Parabellum with Retumbo you are going to get unburned powder but I think with reasonable cartridges, it all burns.

That's pretty close to my best guess, but I haven't figured-out how to test it.

I've just sent this e-mail to a dealer friend who's into such things. No reply yet.

I'm for re-forming, myself.

There's an old flea market "Orange Crusher" out back that could be put on air ( or hydraulic), and a small herd of other presses that could form a line and crank out fair volume.

Itr would be nice to run the chosen 25-06 through an annealling cycle on one of those carrousel rigs, prior to their molestation.

GTC

There's no reason for narrowing the choice to either conversion or good ready-to-go new factory cases.

Either one would be massively preferable to trying to make something worth while from the current junk.

Couldn't agree more, Se�or.

The propensity for Zink crystal precipitation in cartridge brass is a major player in that oft used term "Embrittlement".

I'd venture that Ternary and Quarternary Phase Equilibrium diagrams for the ideal cartridge brass alloy matrix is a little beyond the scope of this discussion (and certainly way out of my humble sphere of expertise).

It's one thing to cuss a lot of cartridge brass for dimensional disparities, quite another to run a mixed lot in which by the Mfgs. own admission contain "stronger case heads".
The bolded text is de-facto a condemnation of others in the lot being WEAKER.

One thing for sure, there's a open window for brass hardness and ductility issues to fly throuh and nest, when one's relying on weak process control in his annealing practice.

Time ever allows, I'm gonna' build a carrousel rig for that.

GTC

I have, in near-pristine condition, a classic Dunbar, the best-built handloading press ever made. Always [deservedly] pricy, it never made it into wide-spread popular use and never became known to any but the most dedicated and quality-minded old-time handloaders.

It's a very fine two-station H-frame press, just the ticket for a two-step set of forming dies to precede the regular loading dies in one or two additional presses.

Herter's tried to copy it and made such a miserable parody of it that Dunbar gave a local guy a Dunbar for his Herter copy, just to put the cussed thing alongside a Dunbar in his display. The disparity in workmanship was that obvious, even to a casual on-looker.

Pot metal it ain't.

http://www.doering.cc/dunbar.html

I often thought a small die plate set running on three if not four die pins and linear bearings would make a good press.

Yes, yes, and YES, on the linnear bearing to guide rod sliptivity.

Longs we're shooting for superb coax alignments, a collet style shell holder would pretty skookum.

Yes it would.

Are you going to make Quemado this year. I have a package all wraped up for you and would like to hand it to you face to face.

Will be trying like crazy, at this time it's still up in the air.

GTC

OK. One way of another I will get it to you.

Modified ER collets with a over center toggle that would tension /seat them in the first increment of ram travel would be my play.

If we were to REALLY go for concentric practice, the collet shell holder would be suported on a square to the ram / die "glide plate".

GTC

and I thought a Forster Co-Ax was fancy

I had a RCBS Big Max some years ago. That was a stout machine, though I never did try to measure its alignment. The Big Max brings good money, when they turn up today.

I've tested several designs of "universal" shell-holders and found that not one, so far, was strong enough to pull a tight case out of a die.

The shell-holders always let-go first.

So I used 'em in a separate press (with a universal decapping die) for decapping only.

Their design principles indicated that there was no way that they could fail.

But they failed � whenever they met even the slightest resistance.

The bugaboo was moving parts � parts that can move when you want 'em to move can move when you don't want 'em to move � and they do.

Fool-proof "universal" shell-holders can be made, no doubt � but not economically, I'm sure. The RCBS-type interchangeable inserts are just too simple for economical competition and too failure-proof for easy "improvement."

A good machinist can, of course, design and make an "elaborately simple" automatic shell-holder that won't fail. I'd love to see what guys like crossfireoops and Bristoe could come-up with for their own use.

Speaking of "universal", does anyone have a universal neck sizing die in .22 that they would let go?

Since a crowd of anonymouses rummaged through my dies at one of the Quemado rendezvous and took some, I don't have any kind of a grasp on what all I still have � especially in the way of miscellaneous and special-purpose doohickeys.

There may still be a .22 neck-sizer in the bunch, but sure as Hell it'll turn-out to be gone if I say that it's still here.

The Hornady plant anneals its cases with a carousel jig, IIRC.

Most carousel annealers leave a problem lurking for the guy who's going to convert the annealed cases, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for the loader who's just going to seat bullets in unaltered cases.

If the annealing flame plays on just the outside of the neck and shoulder of the case, it softens that side more than it does the other side. Such uneven annealing around the circumference of the neck and shoulder can ruin cases that a loader tries to neck out to a larger caliber. For example, take a look at my drawing on page 53 of my cartridge book. Brass for the .348 Winchester was right pricy even in those long-gone days, and the loss of even one case was a stabbing pain from toenail to topknot.

Greg, the mental image of you merrily churning-out converted ready-to-load cases for several of our compa�eros puts a wide grin on my face. But an average handloader, using the rig that I�ve drawn on page 51 of my book (and described on pages 45�50), can anneal a whompin� pile of cases in a wee fraction of the time that it�d take to build a carousel annealer � and maybe never have to anneal �em again!

I�d really love to see how you�d make a carousel annealer that would anneal the necks and shoulders evenly all the way around �em! (Seriously, ol� friend. Curiosity, not challenge!)

TWO micro jets / torches, playing on the necks 180* opposed, and the carousel set so's it puts rotation on the cases as it rotates. There's already one out there on the market, ....it's SLICK.

Another VERY viable, and bone simple way that one can escalate his QC and consistancy is no more complicated than a clamping bar that holds an acceptable quantity of brass,...tramming down to a preset repeatable depth, into a Niter bath. Good Lab grade thermometer assummed,......THIS is the way to kill that bugbear you described, and probably more consistant than any process using flame , outside of a dfaft free cleanroom environment.

Greg

There are links to a bunch of others herein, on the yuptube bandwidth.

as noted,...SLICK.

GTC

Man, I enjoy this talk, even if I don't understand half of it. miles

Thanks, Greg!

You're far more up-to-date on this technology than I am.

Which doesn't surprise me.

Maybe

Out of curiosity - I have a fast twist (8 or 9, I don't recall) barrel, on a Mauser action, chambered in 22-250. What would be required to ream this to 220H ?

Mark

Check the twist to be sure what it is.

If it's an eight-inch, leave it alone.

If it's a nine-inch, get it to somebody who has a .220 Howell reamer.

Then go with good brass, even if you have to convert your own from good .25-06 cases.

We may yet have good factory brass for this cartridge (it may be in the works as we speak). The currently available stuff is just something to waste time on.

So far, in the the old simulator program that I lost in that computer crash, I was using the theoretical default value for the gross capacity of the .220 Howell design � 62 grains of water, IIRC.

I wonder what it'd be for well made cases, either those made on special contract or those converted from good .25-06 brass.

It's one of the most crucial of fundamental first givens for interior-ballistics calculations.

As soon as I get my bank balance back up to squat, I'll order a replacement (current version) of that old lost program. But I'll still wonder what value to use for the average gross capacity.

Haven't yet sicced any bird dogs onto the matter of forming dies. I s'pose that oughta be my next try.

Swallow hard, wring your hands, kick the cat, and sigh, guys! These cartridges are dead (or at least too far gone to mourn).

Just remembered a "little" detail that I shouldn't have forgotten (another liability of senility � sorry 'bout that!) �

Before he abandoned the cartridges that he'd asked me to design for him and later sold the company, Ed Plummer copyrighted 'em in the name of American Hunting Rifles. No one else can legally make or sell the .##0 Howell rifles, dies, or brass. I've been told that American Hunting Rifles will sell .##0 Howell dies and brass only with AHR rifles.

I have no reason whatever to doubt the quality of AHR rifles. I assume that it's excellent, else Ed wouldn't have sold the company to Jacobson. The loading dies that AHR will provide with AHR rifles will of course come from top makers like Hornady, but the AHR brass that I've handled is an exercise. Other than that, an AHR outfit should be excellent, though possibly a bit pricy for some shooters.

Wildcatting is the only other way left.

Since the .22-06 Howell (or .22-06 Short) is a shortened .25-06, it'll need form dies to push the shoulder back � then .22-06 Howell dies can load those converted cases.

The other wildcats � such as the .25-06 Short Neck (SN) and .338-06 SN � will have to be fire-formed from .25-06 and .35 Whelen brass. They'll have shorter necks than the 0.375-inch .##0 Howell brass from AHR but the same powder capacities.

So it's "back to the drawing-board" for the old fart to gin-up the necessary spec drawings for the wildcats.



Fire-forming � I've posted this here before, but for expedience, here 'tis again �
� Use pistol primers
� � and no bullets
� Load about 10�15 grains of pistol or shotgun powder. Start low and increase the charge very slightly until mushy shoulders form crisp and sharp.
� Roll � square of toilet tissue into a wad and tamp it lightly onto the powder charge.
� Fill the case with inert filler such as Cream of Wheat or Instant Ralston (not flour!) into the neck of the case.
� No bullet, remember! A small smear of bullet lube will hold the dry cereal in place until you shoot it out.

can't kick the cat, he's older than you, at least in cat years, anyway

The concept behind the cartridge still seems worthwhile, even if it has to take a slight detour, here and there.

Ken,
Have you spoken with the folks at AHR to see what their objections might be to someone else chambering a Howell cartridge?

They don't list the Howell line of cartridges in the list of available brass, in fact, they only list big game and dangerous game cartridges.

Ed

Ed,
I seen a 380 Howell on there for sale built and all for somewhere in the $4k range lol.
Thats a good question about someone else chambering/building besides themselves.

kique

Kique,

Good to see you on here, bother!

I just sent an email to Wayne at AHR asking the question. We'll see what he comes up with.

Ed

IIUC, Jacobson has a lot more stuff on hand than his web site shows.

I haven't called him for the simple reason that with my throat paralyzed and my hearing shot, I can't handle a 'phone conversation.

OK, we'll just wait and see what Wayne has to say in response to my email.

Fingers crossed.

Ed

bump

After an extended series of emails with Wayne Jacobson at AHR, I have some things to share about the Howell line of cartridges, the brass, reamers, etc.

1. There has only been one lot of Howell brass made since Wayne bought AHR.

2. The dimensions of THAT brass is what Wayne based his reamers on, NOT the original drawings or reamer specs.

3. The Howell basic brass that the .220, .340, and other "'06" dimensionally based chamberings actually has a rim diameter of 0.467" +-, NOT 0.470+- as one would expect.

4. The neck thickness of the .340 Howell IS 0.012", not the nominal 0.015" you would expect of "'06" based cartridges.

5. AHR manufactures their own full length sizing die to be sold with the other reloading dies to accommodate the different brass dimensions. A full length sizing die costs $150.00.

6. AHR has chambered the Howell line of cartridges in MRC Model 1999, Win. Model 70, and '98 Mauser actions, but prefers to use CZ-550 actions.

7. Current cost to rebarrel a CRF action in a Howell chambering in chrome-moly, with a custom taper, is ~$700.00.

That's all the news that's fit to print.

Ed

Yep! We need another 'family of cartridges' like I need a double hernia!!

Interesting Ed. Thanks for the info.
When I gave him a call, he said he had 270 brass and I think 340 brass that he said he would sell for a buck a piece.
When I asked him about dies, he said he would only sell the dies with a build rifle as a package since he is not in the die business.
So if he would sell em alone and not together like he told me, then that might not be a bad way to go if he sticks to it. then again Im not sure about the dies and their cost since ive never made customs.
Not sure if the rebarrel is a good price or not, but a brand new rifle run about that, so seems reasonable.

good info Ed!

Kique,
I priced a PacNor custom taper stainless barrel on an action of mine in a standard caliber and it was right at $650, so $700.00 isn't too far out of line.

I wonder what a Redding bushing die would cost? The Forster dies I have re-size the shoulder & body just greeat, it's that too-small neck diameter that gives me fits.

Rick, with a safe full of Sharps, who needs more?

Ed

Fret thee ne'er, compa�ero!

� The line is moribund.

� No one has ever intended to force 'em onto you.

(Have you read the post that began this thread?)

Yes...long ago!

Read it again.

These twelve cartridges were designed for Ed Plummer, at his request � not for you to accept, approve, or evaluate.