Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Magnum Primers #2

BC30cal
The test you mentioned, the 300 H&H and 300 WSM. Cut the chamber for the H&H first, then the WSM. The idea was to use the same barrel in both cartridges. Both have almost exact case capacity. With the same primers, powder and charge, and bullets, same chrono, same strain gage, etc, both made the same speed and pressure and accuracy. I dont buy the whole case shape/special shoulder/ no belt idea. Here is one thing I have learned and will test against any data at any time :
Primers, gun powder, and bullets do not respond to advertising !
They will do what they do.
And another thing.....I dont think we need any more new calibers until we starting burning something other than smokeless powder. The perceived advantages of several of these new calibers, the real advantage is less than the noise in the testing.
All that coming from a man who must have at least 15 wildcats in 9.3 !
Charlie

P.S. just remebered.....that particular barrel in the test shot better in every way with Ramshot Hunter than all the other powders.

Charlie,

A few years after you ran the .300 H&H/WSM test I had some very interesting conversations with guys who run major pressure labs about case-shape affecting pressures. NONE of them had ever seen that in any of their testing--in other words, the same amount of powder room produces the same pressures and velocities, just as you found.

However, one of the guys (the oldest and most experiences) said that case shape did affect the consistency of powder burn, especially shorter cases with shoulder angles around 30 degrees, which is of course the modern ideal for "accuracy" rounds. Both shallower and steeper shoulders (including the 40-degree Ackley angle) resulted in less consistent pressures.

The notion that the .300 WSM's case-shape allowed it to produce more velocity due to "efficiency" of the powder burn was promoted by Winchester PR. Their major "evidence" was the fact that the smaller WSM case could achieve 2960 fps with 180-grain bullets, the same as the then-standard factory load for the .300 Winchester Magnum. But they apparently failed to notice (or decided to ignore) the fact that the .300 WSM required more pressure to match the .300 Winchester load. Since then, of course, SAAMI has approved even faster 180-grain loads for the .300 Winchester Magnum.

This may have been more true in Ackley's time, both the powders and primers were different than now. In general I think primers have gotten hotter as more slower and ball powders were available. But this may not be across the board for all of them.

I think JB touched on the 300 H&H/300 WSM test in one of his Gun Gack books.
Charlie I don't think we need any more calibers either. A deer is still just a deer the same as they were in the days of Jack O Connor and Elmer Keith. I drank the Creedmore Kool Aid briefly . Didn't care for the rifle it was in and wasn't impressed enough to buy reloading dies. I sold it and had a 6.5X55 built and I love it. My last three custom rifles are in classic time proven calibers. The Swede, a 38-55 on a high wall action and a 300 H&H on a #1. If it's not broken stop trying to fix it.

My understanding is that it wasn't an accuracy test; but I brought up in the past that the short powder column and 30 degree shoulder didn't seem to have a measurable effect on accuracy or getting the fuel "lit" with more "efficiency".

Everything appeared to be pretty much same/same, with the usual small uncontrollable variables.

You're my hero . . . a 9,3 Newton by chance?

Probably don't really NEED the ones we have stacked away in the safe....

But, that's a 4 letter word to a Loony...



DF

I certainly cant say we dont need more calibers. But.....I my opinion.......the 338 Win Mag necked up to 9.3 , may be the most useful wildcat I ever made when it comes to putting meat in the freezer.
Charlie

Muskegman
I wish you hadn’t mentioned that.....now I have to buy another reamer...
Charlie

Fellas, this thread right here is why I have paid my dues of enduring a lot of Campfire dreck lo these many years now. Thank you, most sincerely.

While I have zero personal use for the magnum cartridges discussed in the course of the thread, the theory is transferable to that which does interest me. As an incorrigible student of the gun, I shall follow this thread to its end.

Am I wrong in promoting the following Therom:

The straighter the case becomes.....the more footpounds of energy is produced per grain of powder burned?

Thanks

You're correct in that case capacity to bore volume ratio matters, but the max average pressure of the cartridge matters as well.

That said, If two cartridges have the same capacity and operate at the same pressure, the one that as a larger diameter bore will be more efficient, ie, "the more foot-pounds of energy is produced per grain of powder burned."

Ah, the 9.3 Norma?!?

Did you give up on the 120 Knob Creek?

Sitka
I’ll give up Knob Creek when the grass grows over me.......
Charlie

Angus
I hadn’t given that formula any thought so I cant say. But after doing a lot of testing, to me, foot pounds of energy from a bullet is a might near useless number.......aaaahhhhhh....that statement will rub some hair the wrong way, but thats what my testing has shown. Your mileage may vary.
Charlie

FPE is a useless number IMHO

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What measurements are " needed" when comparing kinetic ordinants?

Why is the 9.3 deemed a superior ordinance?

Does temperature affect the performance of primers?

Is FPE a kinetic energy measurement?

Are metallic cartridges a kinetic ordinance ?

Thanks

Angus,

Apparently you're one of the millions of Internet users who expect a "free" definitive answer in 2-3 sentences/ Good luck.