|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
Good grief, it's like a senior version of JeffO..............
"Post your load........" No VA, it's NOT. And you know it. If "Schtick" wants to tell tall tales on this forum, the least he could do is give a actual powder charge to back up his claim .. He can't, because it doesn't exist.
Last edited by jim62; 12/15/10.
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
Yeah, it's basically the same thing....
FWIW, I gave you parameters of how you can get there... or close to it. Not that hard to figure out, should someone want to try it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
Yeah, it's basically the same thing....
FWIW, I gave you parameters of how you can get there... or close to it. Not that hard to figure out, should someone want to try it. VA, If "Schtick"' was an adult, and actually telling the truth,you would not need to talk about "close"... He'd just post the load data he uses to get those speeds. Like I said, the load data doesn't exist, so rather than get caught in a SECOND lie- he dodges the question.
Last edited by jim62; 12/15/10.
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
Ever think that MAYBE posting load data that ain't sourced directly from a publication is a rather dangerous and stupid idea that can get you sued by some DSMFer out there that just loads your MAX loads in his rifle, regardless of development requirements, and blows his rifle/self up?
An example would be AGW (AussieGunWriter) who has said repeatedly that he gets performance out of '06s that pale the top loads in most manuals by a GREAT (not just good) margin, but no way in Hell he'll post that data. And, I ain't about to contest his experience loading or shooting. Ditto more than a few other folks.
Larry's crazy, yes, but he ain't stupid.
Odds are, if he ain't getting the exact velocity he's quoting, he's close enough for gov't work, but smart enough to NOT put up specs and hang his azz out to dry if some idiot blows themselves up with his "perfect" load.
Can't fault him that.
Running some calculations, yeah, it's possible, and the range of what it'd take to get there, is easy to decipher (as I did). Now, whether your rifle can get there, or whether you want to try to take it there, is a whole other question.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,559 Likes: 10
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,559 Likes: 10 |
Yeah, it's basically the same thing....
FWIW, I gave you parameters of how you can get there... or close to it. Not that hard to figure out, should someone want to try it. VA, If "Schtick"' was an adult, and actually telling the truth,you would not need to talk about "close"... He'd just post the load data he uses to get those speeds. Like I said, the load data doesn't exist, so rather than get caught in a SECOND lie- he dodges the question. Dumbschitt, Search is your friend and I'm deeply humored that it stumps you...though I groove on it,in conjunction with your rampant stupidity...................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
Yeah, it's basically the same thing....
FWIW, I gave you parameters of how you can get there... or close to it. Not that hard to figure out, should someone want to try it. VA, If "Schtick"' was an adult, and actually telling the truth,you would not need to talk about "close"... He'd just post the load data he uses to get those speeds. Like I said, the load data doesn't exist, so rather than get caught in a SECOND lie- he dodges the question. Dumbschitt, Search is your friend and I'm deeply humored that it stumps you...though I groove on it,in conjunction with your rampant stupidity................... Schtick- I am amazed at how you hysterical you are when caught in a lie. You wail like a chick. No need to search for that which does not exist (your mythical WW-296 load). The proof of your dishonesty is shown by your inability to provide the charge weight. 
Last edited by jim62; 12/16/10.
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,559 Likes: 10
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,559 Likes: 10 |
I've a plethora of mainstay loads in these parts and it's more than a bunch humorous,that such obvious is well beyond your ability to comprehend.
Groovin' on your penchant to flaunt just how amazingly stupid you are and I'm more than happy to toss you all the slack you THINK you can handle.
Classic!..................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
I've a plethora of mainstay loads in these parts and it's more than a bunch humorous,that such obvious is well beyond your ability to comprehend.
Groovin' on your penchant to flaunt just how amazingly stupid you are and I'm more than happy to toss you all the slack you THINK you can handle.
Classic!.................. I think you're the one who needs "slack"- Little man. As in tolerance for your 3,450 FPS "k" Hornet LIE.. 
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,559 Likes: 10
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 58,559 Likes: 10 |
Thinking ain't your longsuit as you so eloquently espouse ala all your "vast experience",in regards to something as simple as a 33gr projectile of repute.
Your ballistics "knowledge" runs commensurate with same...though it's easy for you to be consistent,when sheer stupidity is your only gear.
Congratulations?...................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,268
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,268 |
Wish I had the magazine at hand, but was reading about a guy who was pushing light stuff, 25 grain bullets from standard hornet at 4K+, albiet with a 26" barreled browning single shot...so I'd be wary of calling BS on a measly 3400 fps:)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,456
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,456 |
Looking at Speer #14, I see data for 33 grain TNT HP's claiming 3217 with 12.8 of 296 out of a straight Hornet. They have no K data, but it would seem possible to get to 3450 with the increased capacity of the K.
The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,078
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,078 |
Then there's moly. 3450 seems pretty realistic to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
<laughing>
Damned facts and party-poopers.
Figure the K might give you (in the R-P capacious brass) about a 10% increase in volume....
FWIW, QL gives the 12.8 '296 Speer load about 3052 fps. Figuring that I've found QL to be about 150-200 fps slow on a LOT of calcs, there's a benchmark for further permutations.
So, given the QL spec of 14.5 grains of water capacity in the "standard" Hornet case.... plus 10% for capacious brass and K treatment... gets you to 16.0 grains of water capacity, quickly.
Add 10% to the powder charge.... and what do you know.... a QL projection RIGHT at redline (sans moly; a touch under with moly) that's about 200 fps slower than the claimed 3450.
Of course, if someone would care to drive a decent search engine and LOOK for the load in question, they could see for themselves what it actually is.
SWAG'ing things, though.... one can cipher stuff out close enough for gov't work, and probably get pretty danged close to the claimed velocity, with at least a similar load.
Of course, that does tend to dry up a pissing match PDQ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
<laughing>
Damned facts and party-poopers.
Figure the K might give you (in the R-P capacious brass) about a 10% increase in volume....
FWIW, QL gives the 12.8 '296 Speer load about 3052 fps. Figuring that I've found QL to be about 150-200 fps slow on a LOT of calcs, there's a benchmark for further permutations.
So, given the QL spec of 14.5 grains of water capacity in the "standard" Hornet case.... plus 10% for capacious brass and K treatment... gets you to 16.0 grains of water capacity, quickly.
Add 10% to the powder charge.... and what do you know.... a QL projection RIGHT at redline (sans moly; a touch under with moly) that's about 200 fps slower than the claimed 3450.
Of course, if someone would care to drive a decent search engine and LOOK for the load in question, they could see for themselves what it actually is.
SWAG'ing things, though.... one can cipher stuff out close enough for gov't work, and probably get pretty danged close to the claimed velocity, with at least a similar load.
Of course, that does tend to dry up a pissing match PDQ. VA, I was loading for Hornets when you were still dragging your momma's tit.. WW-296 and Remington Hornet cases are the same now as they were 30 years ago. Nothing has changed in that regard, So be damned careful who you blow your BS by. A "K" hornet "might" add 100 FPS for any given powder /bullet combo.. Your claim of a 10% increase with the "more capacious" Remington brass is pure fantasy on your part.. In a Hornet , Rem brass MIGHT allow you a half gain more of powder space. Maybe. Then there are the case wrecking pressures that 296 operates at in the THIN Hornet cases. Punching out a Hornet to a "K" does NOT magically make the case webs thicker. They STILL stretch and need to be tossed after 1 or 2 firing if run at 40,000+CUPS with the 296 some of you guys are talking about. Even then, 3,450FPS is not attainable. Stick won't name the load because his "data" to get those speeds simply does not exist. And BTW, VA since you feel the need to defend "Schticks" ballistic "Snipe Hunt" , I will issue YOU the challenge- NAME any other online source that recommends any WW-296 load for a 30 or 33g slug in a K Hornet that can even HOPE to achieve 3,450 FPS in a 20" tube.
Last edited by jim62; 12/16/10.
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
Jim;
Can you drive a search engine? Try it; you might be amazed at what you find that "does not exist".
As for capacity; a good scale is a wonderful thing, as is weighing things for yourself.
By your own admission, you started loading for the Hornet in 1997. I was in the USMC then, though I'll admit to dragging a few tits in Carolina during the time frame...
Tell ya what, Jim, instead of jumping up and down and pissing yourself; why don't you ladder test a few loads with '296 in a K-Hornet, moly'd 33s (or 35s) and see where you get to via a chronograph before you hit max pressure.
It ain't me, Jim. And, it ain't 'Stick, nor MontanaMarine, nor anyone else. It's you, Jim.
Try it, and see what you get to. Just because YOU haven't done something, doesn't mean that it ain't possible; only that you haven't done it.
BTW - R/P cases START as Hornets with more capacity than 14.5 grains of water. More along the lines of about 15.0-ish. Another grain work, via punching it out to K-Hornet gets you right at 16.0 grains capacity.
You're the one that says it can't be done; well, have you even TRIED?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 51
Campfire Greenhorn
|
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 51 |
Guys, I hate to step into the middle of your pissin match, but I do have some info to add. I had a couple of Ruger #3 .22 K-Hornets back in the 90's. The first one had a deep clearance for the extractor and would not stand very high pressure loads before the case would give way into the clearance notch. The second one had a shallower cut and I did a lot of load testing with it. The load that I used on PD's was 14.2gr 296 with 40gr NBT's,Vmax's and BK's. Looking at my records I see that most loads were a little over 3200 fps with two 5 shot strings running 3258 and 3261. I was useing WW brass and Fed 205 primers and the barrel was original 22" long Ruger. When the 35gr V-maxes first came out I bought a box to play with. I only have record of one range session with them in June,00. My top load got 3364 fps with 14.9 gr 296. I don't know if 2gr less bullet weight and a couple more inches of barrel length would get you another 86 fps or not but it would be close. I got the most fps with 296,but this was before Lil Gun was available and it's supposed to give more fps with less pressure. Of coarse these loads worked in my rifle but should be approached with caution. I was playing with the printer the other day and scanned some old pics of the rifles I had back in the 90's. My #3 .22 K-Hornet is in the front in this pic. ![[Linked Image]](http://i702.photobucket.com/albums/ww25/219DW/oldgunpics3.jpg) As for the original question about shooting coyotes with a .22 Hornet, wouldn't be my first choice, but if I was going to use a Hornet I would probably use a 55gr soft point maybe something like a Sierra semi-pointed. Dave in IN
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 61,130 |
Guys, I hate to step into the middle of your pissin match, but I do have some info to add. I had a couple of Ruger #3 .22 K-Hornets back in the 90's. The first one had a deep clearance for the extractor and would not stand very high pressure loads before the case would give way into the clearance notch. The second one had a shallower cut and I did a lot of load testing with it. The load that I used on PD's was 14.2gr 296 with 40gr NBT's,Vmax's and BK's. Looking at my records I see that most loads were a little over 3200 fps with two 5 shot strings running 3258 and 3261. I was useing WW brass and Fed 205 primers and the barrel was original 22" long Ruger. When the 35gr V-maxes first came out I bought a box to play with. I only have record of one range session with them in June,00. My top load got 3364 fps with 14.9 gr 296. I don't know if 2gr less bullet weight and a couple more inches of barrel length would get you another 86 fps or not but it would be close. I got the most fps with 296,but this was before Lil Gun was available and it's supposed to give more fps with less pressure. Of coarse these loads worked in my rifle but should be approached with caution. I was playing with the printer the other day and scanned some old pics of the rifles I had back in the 90's. My #3 .22 K-Hornet is in the front in this pic. As for the original question about shooting coyotes with a .22 Hornet, wouldn't be my first choice, but if I was going to use a Hornet I would probably use a 55gr soft point maybe something like a Sierra semi-pointed. Dave in IN Jim just went apoplectic...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,461 |
Not that I care one way or another mostly read about cartridges I don't own just to learn from others that do own and run them. This is what is posted on the Hodgdon site for the K hornet. It was the closest they had to a 33 grain bullet.
30 GR. BAR VG FB Winchester 296 .224" 1.750" 11.0 2996 40,200 CUP 11.7 3108 43,100 CUP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
Guys, I hate to step into the middle of your pissin match, but I do have some info to add. I had a couple of Ruger #3 .22 K-Hornets back in the 90's. The first one had a deep clearance for the extractor and would not stand very high pressure loads before the case would give way into the clearance notch. The second one had a shallower cut and I did a lot of load testing with it. The load that I used on PD's was 14.2gr 296 with 40gr NBT's,Vmax's and BK's. Looking at my records I see that most loads were a little over 3200 fps with two 5 shot strings running 3258 and 3261. I was useing WW brass and Fed 205 primers and the barrel was original 22" long Ruger. When the 35gr V-maxes first came out I bought a box to play with. I only have record of one range session with them in June,00. My top load got 3364 fps with 14.9 gr 296. I don't know if 2gr less bullet weight and a couple more inches of barrel length would get you another 86 fps or not but it would be close. I got the most fps with 296,but this was before Lil Gun was available and it's supposed to give more fps with less pressure. Of coarse these loads worked in my rifle but should be approached with caution. I was playing with the printer the other day and scanned some old pics of the rifles I had back in the 90's. My #3 .22 K-Hornet is in the front in this pic. As for the original question about shooting coyotes with a .22 Hornet, wouldn't be my first choice, but if I was going to use a Hornet I would probably use a 55gr soft point maybe something like a Sierra semi-pointed. Dave in IN Jim just went apoplectic... Not apoplectic, just damned skeptical. Esepcially when "Schtick" refuses to man up and name the exact powder charge he used to get the speeds he claimed. As to the above post- nice try, but still no actual 3,450 FPS loads, just conjecture and extrapolations. Which are s fool's errand in a the thin Hornet case at the pressures we are talking about. Dream on.
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,978 |
Guys, I hate to step into the middle of your pissin match, but I do have some info to add. I had a couple of Ruger #3 .22 K-Hornets back in the 90's. The first one had a deep clearance for the extractor and would not stand very high pressure loads before the case would give way into the clearance notch. The second one had a shallower cut and I did a lot of load testing with it. The load that I used on PD's was 14.2gr 296 with 40gr NBT's,Vmax's and BK's. Looking at my records I see that most loads were a little over 3200 fps with two 5 shot strings running 3258 and 3261. I was useing WW brass and Fed 205 primers and the barrel was original 22" long Ruger. When the 35gr V-maxes first came out I bought a box to play with. I only have record of one range session with them in June,00. My top load got 3364 fps with 14.9 gr 296. I don't know if 2gr less bullet weight and a couple more inches of barrel length would get you another 86 fps or not but it would be close. I got the most fps with 296,but this was before Lil Gun was available and it's supposed to give more fps with less pressure. Of coarse these loads worked in my rifle but should be approached with caution. I was playing with the printer the other day and scanned some old pics of the rifles I had back in the 90's. My #3 .22 K-Hornet is in the front in this pic. As for the original question about shooting coyotes with a .22 Hornet, wouldn't be my first choice, but if I was going to use a Hornet I would probably use a 55gr soft point maybe something like a Sierra semi-pointed. Dave in IN Dave, Thanks for that specific data. Your K hornet speeds with the 40g slugs are right in line with what I have seen for 20 years. As to attaining 3,450 FPS with a 33g slug," Mr Schtick" here claimed to get that number in a 20" tube with a mystery charge of ww-296.
To all gunmaker critics-
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.."- Teddy Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
502 members (12344mag, 160user, 10gaugeman, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 01Foreman400, 49 invisible),
2,267
guests, and
1,132
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,509
Posts18,490,747
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
