Messages

I've seen HB shoot. That's not a problem. 'Qualifying' will be his only problem.

Paul

Great stuff!

Thanks for posting.

Paul

I think you're right!

Paul 

As some may recall, I have been seeking Accubond bullets in various calibers for some two years. Primarily 225-grain bullets in .338, but also AB bullets of any weight in 6.5mm and recently, .270. I have also had on "notify me when back in stock" status a .257 caliber bullet: The 60-grain flat point from Hornady, #2510. An excellent bullet for the .25-20. Two years waiting on that!

Well, as you suspected, I got notified that the .2510s were in at a place in Texas. Got right on it, and ordered some. However, I was told "We can't send ammunition through the mail." IT'S NOT AMMUNITION YOU BLEEPING MORONS!" I expect this stupidity from Marxist idiots, but not from a gun store. IN TEXAS!  AND... They wanted to charge me SIXTY DOLLARS to ship it to me in Alaska! (UPS of course.) And that was after having to pay $45/100 for them. I politely (yes, actually), declined their 'offer'.

It occurred to me that if one place had received them from Hornady, maybe somewhere else had too. Voila', I found them for $24/100, and $10 shipping. I ordered a couple of hundred. Ha! Fie on you Texas gun store.


Next, I went to Nosler's site to renew my "notify me when back in stock" on the .338 caliber, 225-grain, Accubonds. Still not in stock. Neither the .270 ABs. But... They did have IN STOCK 6.5mm, 140-grain, ABs! FOR $25/50! Unheard of price, especially direct from Nosler! (They are 'blemished' though.  ) I got four boxes of those!

Fortunately, I found some 130-grain, .270 cal, ABs at another site a few days ago. I also got, (from an auction site), some 60-grain Partitions in .22 caliber to use in the .22-250.

So, with the exception of .338, I am set for reloading cartridges for the rifles Caitlin and I will be hunting with this year.

I guess all things come to those that wait. Except .338 Accubonds.

Paul

[uncomfortably]

All of Alain's rifles were fitted with supressors. Since getting a supressor in the US is 'difficult', no suppressors came with any of his rifles. Instead, they were all fitted with muzzle brakes.  I don't like muzzle brakes. I don't like what they do - make muzzle blast uncomfortably loud for the shooter and those nearby, AND, to my eye, they're ugly. Sauer 90s come with muzzle brakes standard. The 90 I have in .338 Win Mag has one, and so does the .270. So I decided to make a thread protector for the .270.



As usual, the camera exacerbates microscopic lines in metal.   It looks better than the picture looks. One thing I don't like about thread protectors is that with the barrel heating up and expanding and contracting, they can get stuck on. In order to combat that the DoD puts "compression washers" between the flash supressors on M14s (AR-15s) and the shoulder of the threaded muzzle. I decided to just put an O-ring. I also milled a couple of flats in it so I can take a wrench to it if I need to.

I'm going to make one for the .338 next. Then work my way through all of Alain's rifles.

I 'colored' it in the kiln - 20 minutes at 650F - but I think I'm going to use some Birchwood Casey bluing to try and darken it a bit more.

Paul

 I like that these critters look more like 'proper' wild boar than feral pigs!

Paul

The Hunter's Life (THL) is a place where people can enter and interact with like-minded people with an  expectation of pleasant conversation and exchange of ideas. THL will constrain people in the  way they speak, but only in the context of civility and common sense.  EVERYONE should feel uninhibited in expressing their viewpoints without  fear of condemnation or reproach as long as they maintain an air of  open-mindedness and congeniality. Public ridicule of members of THL will not be  permitted.

Criticism and ridicule of ALL elected and appointed  government officials is allowed within the confines of good taste. This  is part and parcel of being American and THL considers criticism of  public officials "healthy" AS LONG AS the critical language does not  violate THL's language policy.

THL is an "American" site. By  that, it is meant that it "resides" in the US, its owner is American,  and the majority of its members are American. That said, the  non-American members of THL are not only welcomed, they are sincerely  appreciated. IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that EACH of us is sensitive to  offending members of another nationality, including the US. By that it  is meant specifically that members are NOT to:

1) Criticize the hunters and fishermen of other countries for the actions of the politicians of that country.
2) Criticize the legal hunting and fishing practices and methods and means of other countries.

A 'close eye' will be kept on any thread in which criticism of a  nation's politics or politicians is initiated by a member that is NOT of  that nationality. In other words; "I can kick my dog any time I feel  like it, but if you kick my dog, fists are gonna fly".

Simply  put, be respectful. Remember that we American members of THL are not  responsible for the actions of the president and his administration.  Neither are the members of THL from other countries responsible for the  actions of their politicians.

All public figures - authors,  actors, nationally and locally renowned figures - those that put  themselves on TV, radio, the Internet, published books or magazines, are  "fair game" for criticism and ridicule. They have chosen to be a  "public figure" and they must put up with the criticism of the public.

Personal  criticism of members of THL is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If "you" feel the  need to "have at it" with a member of THL, YOU MUST CONDUCT THIS  ACTIVITY AWAY FROM THL. There is a "zero-tolerance" policy with regard  to criticism of members of THL on the THL website.

THL is a "family friendly" site. Text or images designed to direct  attention to male/female sexuality or biological functions will be  looked at and edited if deemed to be of a prurient nature. As a  family forum, adults are supposed to represent role models for young folks, both as adults and as hunters.

THL is primarily a sanctuary where one can come and feel like they  are visiting the living room of a dear friend. THL is a place to lose  stress, not find it.

Paul

I thought about hardening it, but I recently bought a pair of scope rings, (for the Sauer 90 .270), and to my surprise, they mentioned the steel they used to make it: 12L14. That surprised me for two reasons: 1) 12L14 is 'free machining' steel, meaning that it has lead in it to facilitate machining, and 2) since I have some 12L14, I know from personal experience how 'soft' it is. (It does machine very nicely.) Of course a pair of scope rings should never see the use a reloading die expander ball will see, but... as I have said many times, I'm not a production shop, and my dies don't see in my lifetime, the use 'commercial' dies see in a week. So, the short answer is "no", to both hardening and buying a 'factory' backup. If I break this one I'll just talk like a sailor for a minite and make another one.

I have considered making a custom, two-stage 'reamer' to facilitate fabricating these things. (I'd still drill the initial 1/16" hole with a separate bit.) That might be fun if I do it before I need it.

Paul

PS - This expander is made of cold rolled 1018, which is harder than 12L14. Also, I forgot to mention that hardening, especially in a threaded piece as small as this, can result in the threads being sufficiently distorted that they wont work. Machine shops have means at their disposal that prevent that distortion, that I don't.

Paul

[Four hours later]

Sometimes its better to be lucky than good. 

You may recall the hassle I had with getting the .22-250 resizing die set up. Part of the hassle that I didn't mention was that the expander ball was not original to the die. As such, during the various machinations of getting the die right, that expander ball got broken. (Since the original was gone, I assume it too was broken. Those .22 caliber expander balls are quite delicate.) No matter. "I'll just make another", he says casually.  Four hours later, I have a new, excellent, expander ball for the die.

While I knew it wouldn't be trivial, it was more time consuming than I thought. And before someone tries to defend manufacture's pricing with the above comment, on a CNC lathe it would have been complete in 5 minutes. That's not an exaggeration. But, neither do I have a CNC lathe, nor am I a manufacturing machine shop. 

Lemme 'splain the process. (I was too busy 'paying attention to what I was doing' to take pictures of the process. Sorry.)

There are several critical details. The most obvious is probably the outside diameter. After all, this specification defines the ultimate performance of the thing. However, trust me when I say that's not the most important spec, and it is the easiest one to achieve. There is the hole in the distal end of the expander through which the decapping pin extends. Again, at first blush, no big deal. Just measure the pin OD and drill the proper hole. (1/16th of an inch.) Yeahbut... There are other holes that that hole has to coincide with.

The first one is the diameter of the split, unthreaded, TIP end of the decapping rod. That's the part of the rod that holds the decapping pin. 1/8th of an inch.

Then, there's the threaded part of the expander ball. First a hole of proper diameter for cutting threads needs to be drilled, (#29 or 0.136"), then that hole needs to be threaded with a pitch of 32 threads per inch - #8 diameter.

"Piece o' cake" you say? Well sorta. Until you realize that each one of those holes has to be the 'perfect' length/depth.

The 1/16" hole is "easy", because being the smallest, it's the first. However, I broke two 1/16" inch drill bits drilling that 'first' hole, and I was being very careful, advancing no more than 1/16" before retracting the bit and clearing chips.

That second hole, 1/8" in diameter, had to be 1) exact depth and, 2) have a 'point' on the end of it to act as 'wedge' to close up (tighten) the split end of the decapping rod around the decapping pin. I had to use a drill sharpening device to 'point' the 1/8" bit. It couldn't be too deep or it would punch through the 'wall' at the distal end of the expander, and it couldn't be too shallow or there wouldn't be enough threads for the decapping rod to screw in as far as required to get hold of the expander.

Finally, the hole for the threads that screw onto the decapping rod. It needed to be deep enough for enough threads to grab onto the decapping rod, (remember, there will be great deal of 'pushing and pulling' on the expander), but not too deep to interfere with 'holding on to' the decapping pin.

Here's the perfect place to illustrate how a 'pro shop' would render all of the above into one simple step: A custom 'bit' that is shaped exactly for performing all three drilling operations at once. A 1/16" drill 'point', behind which was a 1/8" drill for the tip of the decapping rod, followed by a 0.1360" drill to make the hole for the threads. It's possible, that drilling all three of those holes with that bit, might take only 30 seconds. Followed, immediately by threading the 'outer' hole.

I had a 'bottoming' 8-32 tap, so threading was pretty straight forward for me once the other holes were drilled.

The only operation left was profiling the outside of the expander.

Which brings me to 'lucky' instead of 'good'. I knew that this OD had to be 'just right'. Too big, and the case neck wouldn't hold the bullet. Too small and the grip would either be too tight, or wouldn't even allow a bullet to be seated without crumpling the neck.

I measured the OD of other .22 caliber expanders I had; several times. I had the dimension I wanted down to a precision 0.0001". 

Remember, I've got hours invested in this thing by now. This was the last operation. Too big, doesn't work but I can probably fix. Too small, throw in trash. Recall too, how small this whole thing is: 0.2245" OD, and only 7/16ths long. 

Anyway, I parted it off and polished it up, threaded it in the decapping rod, and ran a case through the die. I then took a boat-tail bullet and, using my fingers, tried to push it in the case mouth. "No go." Good. Press harder. Hmm... Goes in. Maybe not so good. Pull the bullet out. Ain't happenin'. Good. In the end, it turns out that, at least for now, I'd call this neck tension almost 'perfect'. (Lucky). Tight enough to hold the bullet in, (little recoil in . 22-250), but not 'too' tight. We'll see how it works in the rifle. If it's too loose, I may be able to snug it up a bit, but I don't think it will be.

Paul

That's great stuff, jaeger88! I was wondering about a 'crimp'. I notice lots of used brass shows signs of having been crimped. I studied 'crimping', and understand its potential for improving ignition uniformity. However, I crimping never really improved any of my handloads, so I quit using it. I have a crimping die for the .22-250. If I can't get sub-MoA at 100yd, I'll try crimping.

Paul

PS - I wonder what program he used to print those stickers out? I'd love to have that for my "go to" loads.

Paul

[2 times]

An exercise you might have your son perform is to calculate the actual time it takes a bullet, (your bullets at the expected MV), to pass between the screens. Then calculate the difference, in time, at 150 fps faster/slower. Another way to do it is to just calculate how many seconds per foot (not feet per second) your bullet is traveling and how that number changes with a change in velocity.

Here's the point:
A 'light-based' chronograph works with "shadows". The shadow of the bullet, cast by the sun, passing over the first sensor starts the timer. The shadow of the bullet passing over the second sensor stops the timer. Calculation of speed is accomplished by solving the velocity equation: rate (speed) = distance/time.
Or r=d/t.

In order to answer you question definitively, we would need to know the clock speed (how many times per second) the clock in the chronograph 'ticks'. That clock speed determines two things; 1) the smallest interval of time (remember the 'time' element in the velocity equation) your chrony can detect, and 2) the highest speed your chrony can measure.

Let me do some math for clarification.

The normal distance for the screens of a light-based projectile chronograph, is 2 feet or 24". Using one of my loads that produces expected MVs in the 2650 f/s range, I divide the 2 foot screen separation by 2 times the 2650 MV, (FOOT (1) per second, and TWO FEET traveled in the chronograph), and get 0.000377358 seconds. (No rounding here, (unless it's a repeating decimal), because we're after a very high level of precision. As high as we can get. (I'll come back to the issue of the level of precision we are ALLOWED to use, after I explain the points of the process that are specific to your question.) To put that time in words, it takes 377 millionths of a second for a projectile traveling 2650 f/s to go two feet. Now let's see how long it takes one that is going 150 f/s slower to go that same two feet. 2/2500 = 0.000400 seconds, or 400 millionths of a second. OR... 23 millionths of a second difference. Now, armed with that information, we can ask, "How far does a bullet going 2500 f/s go in 23 millionths of a second?" And the answer is: 0.69 inches. Which you can see is a small proportion (2.8%) of the 2' between screens. What does that mean? Because we KNOW that the chrony can measure velocities faster than 2650 f/s, the clock speed, (or sampling rate), of the chrony has to be faster than 46 million times per second (remember, two feet traveled, not one). Actually, in this day and age, a clock speed of one million times per second would be quite 'pedestrian'. By the same token, it has been my experience that the electronic devices associated with the shooting and fishing sports are pathetically weak on sampling rates. FOR NO GOOD REASON! Other than it MIGHT save a dime, AT MOST, on the cost of a component. (Sampling rates dictate, to some degree, the cost of manufacturing. However, below a certain speed, and a millionth of a second is WAY below that threshold, sampling rate has no effect on cost. Sampling rates of 1/1000000 (one millionth of a second) have been commercially available for more than 50 years. That's HALF A CENTURY.)

Back to the topic at hand. Before we make an arbitrary assumption about the sampling speed of the average, over-the-counter shooting chronograph, let's do a little math and see if we can't make an "educated guess" at that sampling rate. In the examples above, the difference was 150 f/s not 1 f/s! Most MVs are reported to the foot per second precision. For example, 2655 f/s, 3267 f/s, or whatever, but that last 'foot per second' is always reported. Therefore, it is assumed, (dangerously), that the machine measuring the velocity has the capability of actually determining that level of precision. Mathematically speaking, what does that mean?

The good news is that we have a well-defined system: a 24" measuring pathway, and a "known" velocity. (This is a bit circular in that we're assuming we 'know' the velocity based on the measurement of the device we're trying to figure out, but for the sake of this exercise, that assumption is acceptable.) Most chronograph manufacturers assume that no one will be shooting a projectile over 5000 f/s. Or at least that's their 'attitude'. "Why do you need to go that fast?" and "Bullets won't hold together at velocities that fast." Both of which are 'stupid' comments based more on their ignorance and laziness, than reality. Nevertheless, their assumptions about us users sets the ceiling on the sampling rate they 'have' to meet. Given a 2' distance, "How fast do I have to sample to measure to a precision of 1 foot per second for the fastest bullet that can be shot? is their design constraint. (That is, if we believe they care about that level of precision. I know from personal conversations with them, that they don't.) Therefore, I want to measure speed differentials of 1 f/s over a 2' interval when the projectile is doing 5000 f/s.

First, how many seconds does it take to move 1 foot if the projectile is doing 5000 f/s? Answer: 1/5000 or 0.0002 seconds. So for our chrony, a bullet traveling 5000 f/s will take 0.0004 seconds, (4 ten thousandths of a second OR 40 millionths of a second) to go from 'start' to 'finish' in our chrony's 2 foot path. Therefore, mathematically speaking, if we sample at least once every 4 ten thousandths of a second, or 2500 times per second, we could theoretically, 'catch' a bullet doing 5000 f/s.

In order to explain the above italicized 'theoretically', let's look at the actual process of measuring velocity with a discrete sampling device. (A digital chronograph.) Let's start with our minimal sampling rate - 2500 times per second, or once every 0.0004 seconds.
1) The chrony is 'on' and sampling.
2) The bullet leaves the barrel at 5000 f/s and heads for the front screen of the chrony.
3) Right AFTER the chrony samples the front screen, the bullet's shadow passes the chrony's screen. In other words, the chrony "misses" the front of the bullet to start the timer. We know from above, that at 5000 f/s and a sampling rate of only 2500 samples per second, a bullet would have to be a foot long+ in order to 'catch' the bullet with the front screen IF the bullet "just misses" the sampling point with it's point. If the front screen doesn't 'catch' the bullet, the timer doesn't start, and no time/velocity can be measured. We 'missed' that bullet.
We can continue doubling our sampling rate until we get a "distance traveled" (the 1 FOOT in 0.0004 seconds) is "short enough" to catch the bullet, but how short is "short enough"? What's the shortest bullet you want to measure the velocity of? In fairness to chrony manufacturers, I'd say a .17 caliber bullet doing 5000 f/s. The shortest .17 caliber bullet I have is about 0.25" long. Therefore, traveling at 5000 f/s, how long does it take a projectile to travel 0.24999999" long? (Has to slightly less than our bullet length so we can catch the 'tail' - at worst.) Our projectile, doing 5000 f/s will take 0.000004167 seconds, (a little more than 4 millionths of a second), to travel 0.25". Therefore, we MUST sample AT LEAST, 240,000 times a second, to 'catch' the smallest, fastest bullet.

Again, that sampling rate is slower even than 'pedestrian', in our current digital world. And yet, based on my conversations with them, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the light-based chrony manufacturers use the absolute minimum sampling rate they can 'get away with'.
Now that we have an estimate of the minimum sampling rate, is what is the maximum error that our 'minimal' chrony can cause in measuring the velocity of a small, fast bullet? Let's set our new system up.
1) Sampling rate of 240000 times per second.
2) Bullet length 1.25".
3) Expected muzzle velocity about 3000 f/s.
IF the chrony catches the very tip of the bullet's nose to start the timer, AND it catches the nose 'minus 0.25" ' due to sampling speed error at the end screen, at 3000 f/s (36000 inches per second) a bullet will travel 0.25*36000 inches in one sample, or 9000 inches per second, 750 f/s. No way any self-respecting chrony manufacturer would tolerate that level of error due to sampling rate. However, it's simple to calculate what rate it would take to get to ONE FOOT of precision. Simply multiply the estimated sampling rate of 250000 per second by 750, and voila', there's your minimal sampling rate to catch a bullet doing 3000 f/s. If you want the sampling rate to catch a bullet doing 5000 f/s, you'll have to multiply by an additional 5000/3000rds. Just to 'do the math' for you, that would be; 750*250000*(5/3)= 312,500,000, or 312 megaherz.

We're not finished with 'potential sources of error'. Some light-based chronographs (LBC from hereafter), use "sky screens" to diffuse the light from the sun on bright, cloudless days. Hmm, why would they do that... do you think? It's a rhetorical question. They KNOW that errors in velocity measurements occur when the bullet's shadow is 'different' from one shot to the next due to changing light conditions. Those LBCs that don't use sky screens are at the mercy of clouds AND the angle of the sun. If the ANGLE of the sun relative to the chrony changes over the course of shooting, the length of the shadow cast by the bullet, AND it's intensity, (think about a sharp pointed nose shadow, and when that shadow's point is big enough to trigger the device), will change. As you can see from above, that matters. How much is difficult to quantify, but it matters, nonetheless.

Welcome to metrology - the study of measuring things. It is a widely ignored science, but science nonetheless. This was a pet peeve of the late j0e_bl0ggs, and one I share with him, albeit if not with the same 'intensity'. Too many people simply 'take the word' of manufacturers of the tools they use. There is great danger in doing that. As head of the state of Alaska's Sonar and Technical Services, I was constantly confronted with the willingness of fisheries biologists to accept whatever the sonar manufacturers told them as far as the specs and "how it works". Way, WAY too often, it was barely short of a 'pack of lies'. I even 'called' out the biggest fisheries sonar manufacturer in the world at an international symposium for selling the state of Alaska A LOAD OF CRAP, even if the gear had worked as spec'd. Which it didn't! It was deplorable! This gear was being used to manage 'your' fisheries. Think about how less the pressure is on "just" hunters and fishermen. I PROMISE you, "those guys" are deceiving you. Some to a small degree, but some to a huge degree. What do they have to lose? Are you going to call them out? At what forum? There are no "international symposia" on chronograph performance specifications and use. (Neither is there for consumer fisheries sonar systems which are insanely deceitful!) By the way, I got that sonar manufacturer to 1) Make a public apology, and 2) TAKE BACK all of their gear, including the cost of pulling a large research vessel out of the water to remove the installed gear. The cost to them was over a million dollars. The state of Alaska was 'annoyed' with me, because they were "doing good science" with that gear. Shows you how much people WANT TO BE LIED TO.

Finally, there are chronographs that do not use light. Oehler makes one that uses sound, and another that uses radar. If you have to ask "how much", TRUST ME, you can't afford them. 20 years ago they STARTED at $2,000 for the "cheap" models. Then there's the MagnetoSpeed. A good chronograph that used the "magnetic", (actually, it's NOT the magnetism, but rather the INDUCTION), characteristics of bullets (tell me, how magnetic are copper and lead, exactly?) to measure MV. I have one. They're good. Once set up properly, they rarely 'miss' a bullet. HOWEVER, and it's a big "however", they have one significant flaw - the bayonet straps on the muzzle. This has a BIG effect on the rifle's precision. Seriously. Which means, you can't get MV data AND precision data at the same time. You CAN get MV and precision data simultaneously from LBCs.

Paul

Turns out, from the SAAMI spec sheet, that the datum point is 1.5749" from the case head, and 0.347" in diameter at that point. I'll make an anvil for the Stoney Point Comparator with that diameter. I may also make a "headspace gauge" as well. Although I'm not sure to what end, as I won't be chambering any rifles in this cartridge. However, if one cares to be 'anal' about it, one can use a headspace gauge to set up resizing dies. Had I been using a headspace gauge, I'd have recognized the problem with this die (or rifle), PDQ.

PAUL

The above was on a blogger's page. While I applaud Nosler's willingness to admit that the BCs on some of their best-selling bullets were 'optimistic', it should be understood that there was quite a bit of 'talk' about them being too high before Nosler acknowledged it. Nevertheless, they've done more than some of the most egregious BC liars HAVEN'T done. You know exactly who I'm talking about.

Paul

Maybe today is a 'chicken' day.

I returned to my reloading bench with no new ideas other than casting the chambers of the rifle and die. I didn't really want to do that, but I just couldn't think of anything else to do. SOMETHING'S gotta fit! How was I going to get a case SMALL enough to fit well in the rifle's chamber so I  could measure it? I remembered that the 'blown-primer-pocket' cases extracted reasonable easily. I thought maybe what is do is start cutting one of those off with a case trimmer until it fit. Even if that was below the shoulder, I'd then know where the problem was.

I ran one of them back into the chamber. Easy peasy. Hmmm... I measured it's base-to-neck length using the Stoney-Point (SP hereafter), comparator. 2.643". Then I measured one of the cases that wouldn't chamber; 2.657". Hmmm... I measured another; 2.656". I measured another; 2.657". OK! The resized ones were ~0.013" longer than the one that chambered smoothly. This after I had already cut some 0.022" off of the bottom of the die. The die and I went back to the lathe.

Another 0.015" off the bottom of the die. Run one of the long cases back through the die. (After again adjusting the die to just 'kiss' the shell holder.) Voila'! Case chambers great!

What this means:

Either the chamber on the model 700 is short by something approaching 0.040", or the die's chamber is too long by that much. I'm voting on the die, but it could be the rifle. Regardless, the die is now appropriately sized for the chamber of this rifle.

At the moment, I'm using the "27" SP anvil to perform these measurements. That 0.268" hole fits nicely over the case's neck and stops just barely below the neck-shoulder joint. That's not the correct datum point for measuring headspace. The correct point is half way down the shoulder. I'm going to look up the SAAMI specs on the .22-250 chamber, and get that exact diameter. I'll then make an anvil for the SP comparator that will allow me to adjust the die in the press so that the shoulder of a fired case is set back only 1 to 2 thousandths. THAT will allow the greatest case life, and most precise measurements for QuickLOAD or Gordon's Reloading Tool simulations.

Hah! Take that, poor quality control! But still, "you" wasted my time and money. 

Now when will I be able to get back to the range?

Paul

Speaking personally, I'd like to see more of these stories!

Paul