| 400NitroExpress |
| (.400 member) |
| 05/01/08 09:31 AM |
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1
|
Quote:
I was in no way indicating that there is a direct comparison to be made between CUP and PSI, that is why I indicated the different units.
Then why did you attempt to compare them?
Further, here you make the claim that the .450 No. 2 achieves standard performance at 11000 PSI below CIP MAP:
Quote:
Not withstanding this if one takes the MAP the 450#2 uses 73% (approx) to acchieve the same performance as the 458 Lott does with 81% of its MAP.
And here, you make the patently absurd claim that the CIP MAP for the .450 No. 2 was set artificially and arbitrarily low because of old and weak rifles:
Quote:
In my considered opinion the MAP for the 450#2 is on the low side as it was standardised (or re-standardised) quite correctly with due regard to the firarms in which it may be fired, many of which are quite old now.
Which is it? Your arguments are inconsistent nonsense.
You don't know what you're talking about anyway. If the chamber pressure of the .450 No. 2 is lower than all other flanged nitros in the same performance band, and if CIP's intent was to set the MAP for the .450 No. 2 "on the low side" out of concern for older rifles, why would they set it HIGHER than the other flanged nitros in the same performance band, such as .470 Nitro Express and .500/.465 Nitro Express which are chambered in rifles that are almost always newer than those chambered for the .450 No. 2? Because your statements aren't true and that isn't what they did. The original pressure standards - bolt thrust measured using the base crusher system and stated in tons of BaseCUP- weren't industry standards in Britain, they were part of national proof law. When Britain joined CIP in 1980, CIP's entirely different standardizing methodology - chamber pressure, now measured by piezo electric transducer and stated in PSI - became the new legally mandated national proof standard, and it was necessary to restate the original pressure standards using the new and fundamentally different system. The intent was to restate the original standards, not change them. Like the rest of the British flanged nitros, the .450 No. 2 retains it's original pressure standard, restated using the current legally mandated methodology.
Quote:
We were however discussing a Ruger N0.1 which my experience of, suggests is quite capable of handling far more pressure, as is, again in my opinion, the case design under discussion.
I didn't say that it wasn't. The above statement is in no way relevant to your original statement.
Quote:
Quote
"A-Square's data makes for entertaining reading after a few stiff single malts, but is an insider joke in the industry, as few have been able to come anywhere close to duplicating it. As an example, a manufacturer (who will remain nameless) brought out ammunition for some of the British Flanged Nitro Expresses (I have notes on one in particular, which I won't specify). During their testing, they tried some of A-Square's data, which showed 2150 fps in a shorter than standard barrel at way under CIP max average, in their new state-of-the-art CIP spec pressure gun. They got the same 2150 fps velocity alright, but at 10,000 PSI higher pressure than was claimed, roughly 30% higher and 11% over CIP MAP. BTW, they settled on a final load for their factory ammo that tested somewhat under CIP max, and submitted the ammo to CIP for testing. Their results checked out, and the ammo was CIP approved."
End QuoteQuote:
Well that is all very interesting. It seem that there is always somebody that has the inside track on things, but of course it is all too hush hush to publish or reveal the sources. That is a shame for us mere peons, but does I'm sure make the "insiders" sleep better in their beds at least.
Your sarcasm is wasted on me.
Quote:
Pressure testing as you know, has many variables, from primer lot, powder lot, case lot (make), case neck stiffness, ambient temp, crimp, throat length, rifling twist and exact barrel dimension, barrel surface finish, wear ect, that exact duplication of test results is difficult on a week to week basis let alone in different rigs in different places at differnt times. So much so that major ammunition manufacturers alter their loading after testing from one bulk powder to another.
In order to maintain level pressure and performance of each subsequent lot of ammunition, they have to adjust their powder charge when they go to a new lot of the same powder, because the density of each lot is rarely the same, and the difference, frequently significant with canister grade propellants, is by definition usually more significant with the non-canister grade propellants that the commericial loaders use. Are you just now discovering this?
Quote:
This is not designed as an attack on you.
Clearly a lie.
Quote:
I read a number of posts recently where you were praised to the heavens. I am quite prepared to believe that you are as well connected as you state and have access to data that the rest of us do not. If so Sir, then please share your credentials and put that information out with its sources for all to peruse and verify.
If you know for sure, that A squares information may be wrong by as much as 30% then it would appear to be morally incombant upon you to supply people with the sources of this empirical data so that such a dangerous publication can be challenged and withdrawn from print before one of us gets hurt.
To just rubbish the work by inuendo and rumour of others without evidence, just smacks of sour grapes and proberbly borders on the libellous.
Not even a good try. Some of the information I get from the trade is confidential, and you knew that when you posted the above.
I've had complete head separations on the second loading with their brass, bullets that weighed 15 grains less than others in the same box, dimensions that weren't within standard...If nothing else about their products is reliable, why would a reasonably prudent person assume their pressure data to be reliable? When I see pressure data that different from others in the industry, I know which one I believe. I had a copy of their manual, and destroyed it because I didn't trust their data. I avoid their products like the plague, and am not the only one. Ross Seyfreid has said so twice that I can remember in Double Gun Journal and Handloader magazine.
Quote:
It would seem that if forums are not for the free exchange of data and information then they just descend into a pissing contest.
They are for the exchange of information, which also includes experiences and opinions. Some, like you, aren't interested in any of that, and prefer creating pissing contests because you find them more entertaining.