Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

Double Rifles, Single Shots & Combinations >> Single Shots & Combination Guns

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Rechambering a Ruger No. 1
      #92599 - 25/12/07 08:44 AM

I currently have a Ruger No. 1 Chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum that I am considering re-chambering to something a bit larger (45-90 etc.). Does anyone know of any gunsmiths who have reasonable prices for something like this? I’d probably need a new barrel to do this as well.

Thanks
Pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92601 - 25/12/07 08:48 AM

I am not in the locality to recommend a gunsmith, but have you thought of .450 NE or .450#2.

I love No.1's but I went the other way from .300WM to 6mmBR Norma.

Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #92602 - 25/12/07 09:17 AM

Actually those and the .500NE are very intriguing to me but I don't know much about them.
I would love any info you could pass on regarding the .450N# .450#2 .500NE .470 Capstick or any other big bore "dangerous game" cartridges.
I honestly don't have a feel for them (recoil, versatility, trajectory, etc.).

Thanks
pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27068
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92604 - 25/12/07 10:35 AM

Call PacNor (google 'em) and they can tell you what they barrel for and chamber. They make one of the most accurate barrels you can get - way above what the Ruger can take advantage of, but having a great barrel for reasonable cost is a nice thing.
; Harry McGowen is another you could call.
; That Ruger would make a nice .50 Alaskan - 520gr. at about 2,100fps. There is really no need for longer cases uneless you want to burn a lot more powder for little reward. (like 100fps) The .50 Alaskan uses easily aquired .348 brass blown out straight - "0" case loss in forming. After that, a set of dies from CH4D will do the rest. Normal powders like Hodgdon's Extreme H4895 & H4198 will give virtually the same pressure and velocities winter and summer, without presssure spikes. RCBS 550gr. mould was very accurate for me in my RBlock .50 Alaskan. Due to pressure limitations of the rolling block, I only ran 450gr. to 1,900fps. Harold Johnson, who designed the .50 alaskan on a m71 Winchester aciton, called it his bear stopper. He was from Cooper's Landing, Alaska. His modified 450gr. jacketed bullets ALWAYS exited the brown bears he shot, not matter from which direction. North or South, including quartering shots - all exited. He used a cut-off 750 gr. boattailed steel cored .5 browning bullets at 450gr. and reversed them for cup-pointed solid bullets. He also said the cavitation and internal damage was something to behold, due to the cup point. That was at a mere 1,850 to 1,900fps muzzle velocity. Good enough for me.
; You just made up my mind on what to do with my own 'spare' Ruger #1.

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AkMike
.416 member


Reged: 19/11/05
Posts: 2576
Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: DarylS]
      #92612 - 25/12/07 12:33 PM

I suggest that you swap or trade the 300. Get a 45-70 or 458 Mag to play with. If you want more after trying full house loads with either of these you can re-chamber then.
Full house loads with a 45-70 will get your attention when compared to the 300.

--------------------
"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; you may know that your society is doomed." Ayn Rand


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: AkMike]
      #92628 - 26/12/07 01:23 AM

Gentlemen,thank you for your swift responses. I truly enjoy learning from those more experience than myself. The .50 Alaskan was indeed a cartridge I found intriguing but was not aware that it was that potent!!

I have #1s n .375 H&H (most accurate load to date is a 300gr SGK at just over 2500fps) as well as a .45-70 (I've cranked out some hot loads 535gr at just over 1800fps, gas checked of course...man do they rock your world without much pain...until you shoot strings of them off the bench...then they get to you).

I wish .50 cal bullets were as "cheap" as the .458 diam ones but I have access to an accomplished bullet caster
any other opinions or thoughts are welcome and appreciated!!

Strangely enough my .300 win mag hurts more than my 375H&H or my .45-70!!!!
My brother also informed me he had the same experience when he shot them. We both have different body types were he is 6 feet 2 inches tall and 175-180lbs and lean and I am 5feet 9 inches at 220lbs (I’m a weightlifter-formerly natural Bodybuilder and power lifter so my weight is distributed totally different from his). Someone mentioned the “rocket effect” to us but I haven’t investigated that too much.



Thanks
Pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92632 - 26/12/07 02:05 AM

I also found the .358 STA interesting as I enjoy my .375 H&H as well as my 8mm Rem Mag. I don't know much about it aside from the numbers indicate it is a STOMPER!!

Pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DarylS
.700 member


Reged: 10/08/05
Posts: 27068
Loc: Beautiful British Columbia, Ca...
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92633 - 26/12/07 02:35 AM

Pat- I too would ranther shoot my .458 than any bloody .300 mag. It's that sharp, high velocity crack in the recoil I don't like. I did have one .330 I chambered up on a P14 action that didn't kick much at all, but I have no use for small pills on big game. For me, the 7mm mags, .300's etc have no use on big game.
; The .358 STW sounds interesting but I don't think there are any worthwhile bullets for it. I would think most normal bullets would be too soft. I'm not sure any American-type ctg. needs to burn 100gr. of powder. of course that's just a personal opinion as I have no use for sharp kickers. I shot a fellow's .338 UltraMag and that was wayyy over my recoil likes, yet the .458 doesn't bother me.
: The Ruger needs something 'secial', I agree. I'd pick a ctg. somewhat over .40 cal. personally. High velcoity little bullets don't impress me, except for the .172" and .204" variety on gophers.
: The older I get, the more I appreciate stuff like 9.3x62, 9.3 x 57 and the 9.5 versions of both of those rounds for a medium bore. The 'normal' .458 2" and .450 Marlin ctgs. & perhaps the .45/70 in the .458 cal. If Marlin made their levergun in .450 Marlin with a 22" barrel, I'd have one today for my guide and camp gun. The two rifles I've had in .458 2" both made 2,060fps with 510gr. Winchester Solids. Considering the .450/400 does 2,050fps with 400gr., I guess the little 2" .458 is OK! Elmer thought so.
; I am still thinking on a .50 Alaskan (or maybe a .50/90 Sharps for my #1. The .50/90 will do about the same, but a slighlty reduced pressure. I wonder how a hardened 700gr. .50 cal slug would penetrate if driven around 1,700fps? perhaps 1,650fps with a .5 Browning bullet with steel core? Elmer thought 700gr. paper patched slugs were great from his old re-chambered Sharps (.50 3-1/4") at 1,340fps. I think Veral Smith would make the molds. Hmmmmmmmm

--------------------
Daryl


"a gun without hammers is like a Spaniel without ears" King George V


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
smicha6551
.275 member


Reged: 09/08/05
Posts: 88
Loc: NYC & Kuwait
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: DarylS]
      #92636 - 26/12/07 04:29 AM

SSK has on their web page the 50-3-1/4"-750, which uses .50 BMG projectiles (up to 750 grains I suppose). I know for match use there are .50 BMG projectiles which hit 900 grains. Out of a nice heavy single shot I bet that would be one heck of a round.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: smicha6551]
      #92653 - 26/12/07 08:16 AM

Good grief!!! Something of medium power (45-90, .50 Alaskan)is what I’m looking for. I was told that the 450NE 3 1/4 is a pretty manageable cartridge? Does anyone have experience with any of the .450NE cartridges?? I find myself leaning more towards lower pressure cartridges (45K or less if possible).

Thanks
pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92663 - 26/12/07 11:04 AM

450#2 runs around 45,000.

I'm 5'6 and around 160. It doesent bother me at all in my double.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #92674 - 26/12/07 01:39 PM

Bramble,
Am I correct in my thought train that the 450#2 pushes a 500 grain pill at around 2200 fps? Would that make it the equal of the .458 win mag (just at a much lower pressure)?

Thanks
Pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
akjeff
.300 member


Reged: 20/01/04
Posts: 121
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92678 - 26/12/07 04:19 PM

375,

That's basically the jist of the 450#2. My No.1 drives a 500gr bullet at 2150 fps, and does so at a much lower chamber pressure than the .458, as Bramble pointed out. It's a very doable conversion. I had SSK re-chamber a factory .458 Win Mag, and they did a great job of it. I've since re-barrelled this gun(again in 450#2) because I just didn't care for the poor muzzle heavy balance of the factory gun.

Jeff


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
poprivit
.333 member


Reged: 09/04/07
Posts: 398
Loc: Las Vegas, NV
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: akjeff]
      #92793 - 28/12/07 10:42 AM

Sell your #1 and get one in 450/400 Nitro. I used this caliber in Africa to take everything from Cape Buffalo to Wart Hog. Recoil is about 375 level, and factory ammo is available. 'Course, if you want to join the "Order Of The Sore Shoulder", get a 458 Lott. I've got one - kicks like a rabid mule, but went the long way through a Buf with a Federal solid. OW!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: poprivit]
      #92797 - 28/12/07 11:32 AM

Yes, thats it. The 458wm was designed to duplicate the performance of the .450#2 but at much higher pressure.

But seriously, it can be a good conversion, the big rim will give better extraction bite than the WM and in the super strong No.1 action, if you want to hotrod the cartridge then I can't imagine what you could get.
Its a great cartridge for the range, "what the hell is that" factor and the simple act of sliding a pair of 4 1/2 inch cartridges into the breach makes me smile.

The Lott uses nearly 3 times the pressure to get only 100 fps above double rifle 450#2 balistics. In a no.1 you can duplicate them as there is so much spare powder space. A square shows 465 grain solid 2210 fps at only 26,000 CUP the same velocity in the Lott is 50,000psi. Or use something like trail boss or 5744 to get 45-70 type performance for NA game.

In the .450 Assegai A square are getting 2400 with a 500 grain at around 46,500 psi. The case and the 450#2 appear to have around the same capacity although I am just working on the dimensions and don't have a water capacity for the Assegai.

Good luck with whatever you decide on, love the No.1


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bonanza
.400 member


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 375RugerNo1]
      #92800 - 28/12/07 11:41 AM

For a Ruger #1, consider a 45-120. Brass is better quality and cheaper that the 450#2.

If you are going to barrel, go for the 50-90!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: bonanza]
      #92807 - 28/12/07 12:43 PM

Whilst the price bit is correct, what fault do you find with Horneber cases?

and if the cases are built to the origional specs was not the 45-120 a blackpowder case ? and thus less adaptable to nitro pressures?
Max book loads run 500 grain heads at around 1600 fps, that is not even in the same ball park. Do you have some data for its use in modern firarms?

Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
akjeff
.300 member


Reged: 20/01/04
Posts: 121
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #92815 - 28/12/07 01:20 PM

Bramble,

I agree with you on all points. The 450#2 was designed to do what it does, from the get go. As far as brass quality goes, Horneber is First Cabin.

Jeff


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bonanza
.400 member


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #92848 - 29/12/07 12:09 AM

Midway sells Norma 45-120 brass in bulk for about $1.48 each.

They will back order a box of Bertram 450#2 brass for $110.00 if you so desire.

I have a 450#2 Jeffery and have both Bertram and Horny-berner. The rim on the Bertram brass tends to be too thick on some.

The modern brass for 45-120 is plenty strong for modern firearms.

84 grains of R15 a foam wad and topped off with a 480 grain Woodleigh is all you need.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
akjeff
.300 member


Reged: 20/01/04
Posts: 121
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: bonanza]
      #92855 - 29/12/07 01:46 AM

I'm afraid I wouldn't take Bertram brass for free. Of the 20 I got, less than half were functional. The rest had off center flash holes, no/incomplete flash holes, thick rims, etc.....Horneber is the way to go. It's not like a guy needs 500 rounds of the stuff. I'd venture a guess that 100 cases would last most guys a long, long, time. Besides, if I'm going through the trouble of building a British, or Continental styled gun, then it's going to be chambered in a British or Continental cartridge. Were it a '74 Sharps, hey, a 45-120 would be great. Different strokes for different folks.

Jeff


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #93020 - 31/12/07 07:30 AM

For someone in the US looking for something larger than .375 for the No. 1, either .450/.400 3" NE or .450 3 1/4" NE make the most sense by far. Both can be loaded up or down in the No. 1. You could simply trade or sell your .300 and get a No. 1 in .450/.400, or wait for Ruger to chamber it in .450. I can't imagine that they won't, since Hornady is going to bring out the ammo. Hornady is making factory ammunition as well as bullets and brass in .450/.400, and is working on the .450 (including softs and steel jacketed solids in the correct 480 grain weight). I've been using their .400 brass for a while, and just bought another 100 cases. I think it's probably the best flanged nitro brass that's ever been available, and I imagine the .450 will be excellent as well, and it's cheap.

I'll have to agree about the Bertram. I would never choose a caliber that would force me to rely on Bertram brass at all. It's as bad or worse than what's been described. It isn't better than nothing. Horneber is pretty good, but isn't easy to get here - and it's expensive.

Quote:

Yes, thats it. The 458wm was designed to duplicate the performance of the .450#2 but at much higher pressure.




It was actually designed to duplicate the .450 3 1/4" NE.

Quote:

The Lott uses nearly 3 times the pressure to get only 100 fps above double rifle 450#2 balistics.




Not even close. CIP MAP for the .450 No. 2 is 40,610 PSI and for the Lott is 62,366 PSI. That's the legal max for both, and factory ammo is loaded to somewhat under that.

Quote:

A square shows 465 grain solid 2210 fps at only 26,000 CUP the same velocity in the Lott is 50,000psi.


.

CUP isn't PSI. CIP has the MAP for the .450 No. 2 set at 40,610, and that ain't arbitrary. It's there for a reason.

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.

Quote:

In the .450 Assegai A square are getting 2400 with a 500 grain at around 46,500 psi.




I'll believe that when somebody that actually has a pressure gun tests it.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #93386 - 04/01/08 11:01 AM

I wonder what the largest diameter cartridge you can fit in a No. 1 action would be. I would think somewhere around .600? Thanks for all the reading everyone always a pleasure.

Pat


-side notes-
-anyone ever had the chance to shoot a .500 NE 3"??? I'd imagine that's a pretty stomping creature.-


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bramble
.375 member


Reged: 29/07/06
Posts: 950
Loc: England
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #93415 - 04/01/08 02:06 PM

Thanks for that 400.

With ref to the .458 WM comment please see the winking smilie. and refer to the post I was replying to.

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. 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.
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. 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 am not advocating "hot rodding" cartridges, but a lot of people like to do so. I was rather abstractly discussing the possibilities that exist with such a massive bottlenecked heavy case.
Such discussion take place about the 45-70 every day of the week.

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 Quote


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.

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.

But I am glad that you have raised the issue and I will write to A Square tonight as it appears that I will be in danger by relying on their loading data. I am sure that they will be disapointed that their data (which seems to be one of the very few that do publish such) has been a total waste of time, money and effort and left them open to litigation for their slipshod methods.

Quote "I'll believe that when somebody that actually has a pressure gun tests it." End quote

Well A Square did, they invented it and standardised it. But please refer to my comments below.


This is not designed as an attack on you. 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.
It would seem that if forums are not for the free exchange of data and information then they just descend into a pissing contest.

Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
375RugerNo1
.275 member


Reged: 18/12/07
Posts: 96
Loc: VA, USA
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #93478 - 05/01/08 04:36 AM

Gents, I have actually been interesting in purchasing A-Square's reloading manual as it seems as though it would load data and information on cartridges that would not exist in most reloading manuals. Is it worth the $36.00 (plus shipping) (American dollars) that I see it commonly being sold for? I enjoy reading about cartridges their histories, uses and comparing them. So far the only data I’ve been able to find (other than online sources) for less common cartridges like the NE cartridges has been in my “Cartridges of the World” book and it only has a few loads for some cartridges and some of those are without specific powders or load amounts. It would be very nice to have a book that delves into this area of cartridges if it is a quality book.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Pat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: Rechambering a Ruger No. 1 [Re: Bramble]
      #93492 - 05/01/08 09:31 AM

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 Quote


Quote:

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.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Edited by 400NitroExpress (05/01/08 11:38 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 21 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Huvius 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 15046

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved