|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
264 Win mag, 300 Win mag, 338 Win mag is set at 64,000 PSI, The 458 Win mag is 62,000 and the 7mm Rem mag is 61,000 PSI Why would they not all be the same?
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,829 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,829 Likes: 2 |
Winchester bribed saami so their cartridges could outrun Remington’s
Mathew 22: 37-39
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,894 Likes: 12
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,894 Likes: 12 |
Modern pressure testing results reveal the 7mm Rem exhibits a bit more irregularity shot to shot than originally thought. So the average pressure was lowered to reduce the probability of any particular shot exceeding the maximum allowable.
A similar change has occurred for the 243 Winchester.
Last edited by mathman; 08/23/22.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,704
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,704 |
I have wondered if it had something to do with the throating of the various cartridges. Never studied it to see if any correalation, but do know they are not all the same
Lou
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
Modern pressure testing results reveal the 7mm Rem exhibits a bit more irregularity shot to shot than originally thought. So the average pressure was lowered to reduce the probability of any particular shot exceeding the maximum allowable.
A similar change has occurred for the 243 Winchester. Not arguing anything here, just wondering---specifically about the pressure limits of the .280 vs. the .270. I've read a lot of opinions stating that it had to do with the first rifles chambered in .280, but there seems to be some holes in that logic. Maybe there's more to it.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,894 Likes: 12
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,894 Likes: 12 |
Yeah, that's a different situation.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
Modern pressure testing results reveal the 7mm Rem exhibits a bit more irregularity shot to shot than originally thought. So the average pressure was lowered to reduce the probability of any particular shot exceeding the maximum allowable.
A similar change has occurred for the 243 Winchester. Not arguing anything here, just wondering---specifically about the pressure limits of the .280 vs. the .270. I've read a lot of opinions stating that it had to do with the first rifles chambered in .280, but there seems to be some holes in that logic. Maybe there's more to it. Remington wanted a cartridge that approximated the 270 with low enough pressure to work in their semi auto
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,894 Likes: 12
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 44,894 Likes: 12 |
But they eventually chambered it in the 270 which moots the pressure consideration.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,226 Likes: 27
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,226 Likes: 27 |
But they eventually chambered it in the 270 which moots the pressure consideration. Not until they brought out the 7400, which involved some changes. They apparently never chambered the 742 in .270.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
But they eventually chambered it in the 270 which moots the pressure consideration. Not until they brought out the 7400, which involved some changes. They apparently never chambered the 742 in .270. Exactly 💯
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,415 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,415 Likes: 2 |
I read somewhere that Remington specified a lower pressure for the .35 Whelen so it could work in their semi-auto. PJ
Our forefathers did not politely protest the British.They did not vote them out of office, nor did they impeach the king,march on the capitol or ask permission for their rights. ----------------They just shot them. MOLON LABE
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
According to an old Gun trader's Guide with yellowing pages, the 742 was offered in 6mm Rem, .243 Win, .280, .30-06, and .308 Win. There is no reference to .270 Win in the 742.
MD, since the 6mm Rem is rated at 65,000 psi currently, but that long ago the copper crusher pressure measurements would have been used (I assume). Were the 6mm Rem C.U.P numbers the same as the .280 C.U.P rating when that system was in use?
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,502 Likes: 14
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,502 Likes: 14 |
I believe it was set by the original manufacturers in the case of new cartridges and the rifles they were chambered in. Old cartridges such as the 7x57 and many others were set to be safe in older rifles, such as the 93 Mauser, the Remington rolling block and so forth.
I prefer classic. Semper Fi I used to run with the hare. Now I'm envious of the tortoise and I do my own stunts but rarely intentionally
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
According to an old Gun trader's Guide with yellowing pages, the 742 was offered in 6mm Rem, .243 Win, .280, .30-06, and .308 Win. There is no reference to .270 Win in the 742.
MD, since the 6mm Rem is rated at 65,000 psi currently, but that long ago the copper crusher pressure measurements would have been used (I assume). Were the 6mm Rem C.U.P numbers the same as the .280 C.U.P rating when that system was in use? Answered my own question, remembered my old Lyman 46th manual lists pressures in c.u.p. The .280 appears to have been limited to 50,000 c.u.p. and the 6mm Rem limited to 52,000 c.u.p. So, if the .280 was set to 50,000 because of the action strength limitations of the 742, how is it that Remington saw fit to chamber the same rifle in 6mm Rem at 52,000 c.u.p.? That's why I think there's some other reason. And maybe it WAS because Remington wanted the cartridge to operate at lower pressures from the outset, but the question remains, "why?"
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7
Campfire 'Bwana
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,987 Likes: 7 |
quote=RiverRider] According to an old Gun trader's Guide with yellowing pages, the 742 was offered in 6mm Rem, .243 Win, .280, .30-06, and .308 Win. There is no reference to .270 Win in the 742.
MD, since the 6mm Rem is rated at 65,000 psi currently, but that long ago the copper crusher pressure measurements would have been used (I assume). Were the 6mm Rem C.U.P numbers the same as the .280 C.U.P rating when that system was in use? Answered my own question, remembered my old Lyman 46th manual lists pressures in c.u.p. The .280 appears to have been limited to 50,000 c.u.p. and the 6mm Rem limited to 52,000 c.u.p. So, if the .280 was set to 50,000 because of the action strength limitations of the 742, how is it that Remington saw fit to chamber the same rifle in 6mm Rem at 52,000 c.u.p.? That's why I think there's some other reason. And maybe it WAS because Remington wanted the cartridge to operate at lower pressures from the outset, but the question remains, "why?"[/quote] The 6mm Remington is smaller in diameter and less bolt trust than the 280 would be my guess
I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,502 Likes: 14
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,502 Likes: 14 |
According to an old Gun trader's Guide with yellowing pages, the 742 was offered in 6mm Rem, .243 Win, .280, .30-06, and .308 Win. There is no reference to .270 Win in the 742.
MD, since the 6mm Rem is rated at 65,000 psi currently, but that long ago the copper crusher pressure measurements would have been used (I assume). Were the 6mm Rem C.U.P numbers the same as the .280 C.U.P rating when that system was in use? Answered my own question, remembered my old Lyman 46th manual lists pressures in c.u.p. The .280 appears to have been limited to 50,000 c.u.p. and the 6mm Rem limited to 52,000 c.u.p. So, if the .280 was set to 50,000 because of the action strength limitations of the 742, how is it that Remington saw fit to chamber the same rifle in 6mm Rem at 52,000 c.u.p.? That's why I think there's some other reason. And maybe it WAS because Remington wanted the cartridge to operate at lower pressures from the outset, but the question remains, "why?" The 280 was chambered in Remington's worst semi-auto the 740 (It's a POS rifle), which pre-dated the much better 742. The other chamberings were 244, 30-06 and the 308. I'm not sure why the 280 was loaded at lower pressure though.
I prefer classic. Semper Fi I used to run with the hare. Now I'm envious of the tortoise and I do my own stunts but rarely intentionally
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
According to an old Gun trader's Guide with yellowing pages, the 742 was offered in 6mm Rem, .243 Win, .280, .30-06, and .308 Win. There is no reference to .270 Win in the 742.
MD, since the 6mm Rem is rated at 65,000 psi currently, but that long ago the copper crusher pressure measurements would have been used (I assume). Were the 6mm Rem C.U.P numbers the same as the .280 C.U.P rating when that system was in use? Answered my own question, remembered my old Lyman 46th manual lists pressures in c.u.p. The .280 appears to have been limited to 50,000 c.u.p. and the 6mm Rem limited to 52,000 c.u.p. So, if the .280 was set to 50,000 because of the action strength limitations of the 742, how is it that Remington saw fit to chamber the same rifle in 6mm Rem at 52,000 c.u.p.? That's why I think there's some other reason. And maybe it WAS because Remington wanted the cartridge to operate at lower pressures from the outset, but the question remains, "why?" The 6mm Remington is smaller in diameter and less bolt trust than the 280 would be my guess Bolt thrust is determined by chamber pressure and the area of the case head. Both .280 and 6mm Rem are .473" diameter. The size of the bore has no bearing on bolt thrust. Assuming I'm not mis-remembering something...it's happened before!
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
The 280 was chambered in Remington's worst semi-auto the 740 (It's a POS rifle), which pre-dated the much better 742. The other chamberings were 244, 30-06 and the 308. I'm not sure why the 280 was loaded at lower pressure though. Bugger, where did you dig that info on the 740 up?
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,488 |
Never mind that question.
Don't be the darkness.
America will perish while those who should be standing guard are satisfying their lusts.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,502 Likes: 14
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,502 Likes: 14 |
The 280 was chambered in Remington's worst semi-auto the 740 (It's a POS rifle), which pre-dated the much better 742. The other chamberings were 244, 30-06 and the 308. I'm not sure why the 280 was loaded at lower pressure though. Bugger, where did you dig that info on the 740 up? The head gunsmith for Remington was a close personal friend. I’ve hunted deer and pronghorn with him and he used to come to visit. I worked at Illion in engineering and my brother was in upper engineering management at Illion. The gunsmith friend told me the 740 wasn’t worth its weight in firewood.
I prefer classic. Semper Fi I used to run with the hare. Now I'm envious of the tortoise and I do my own stunts but rarely intentionally
|
|
|
|
548 members (219DW, 1OntarioJim, 01Foreman400, 10gaugeman, 17CalFan, 163bc, 54 invisible),
1,718
guests, and
1,197
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,108
Posts18,522,613
Members74,026
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|