Techniques for hardness testing

This is the general discussion area for the forums at BPCR.net. Anyone who appreciates and enjoys the classic single shot rifles of the late 1800 period is welcome to take part here. Civility in all postings, and respect for your fellow shooters are the primary expectations of all members. Trolls will be removed from the membership without warning or recourse. The Forum owner has the final, and only, say in who is determined to be a troll. Please try to put your posts in the correct forum. (Example: loading tips and questions in the "Cartridge Loading..." forum.) Postings may be moved by the moderator to correct forums if he determines they can be better placed.
MLR
PostsCOLON 118
JoinedCOLON Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:39 pm
LocationCOLON Okla, U.S.A.

Post by MLR » Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:33 pm

I have tried using a punch to make an index mark on my cases. That seems to be working out ok.
Am presently using a smaller punch to place indexing marks on my primers. This is not working out so well for me. I seem to be losing my hearing and developing a really bad flinch. :shock: :shock:

Michael

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:03 pm

Kelly, where to start:
which alloy to use in a particular rifle,
which lube to use,
which brand of powder to use,
which granulation of powder to use,
whether to use over powder wads,
whether to use a grease cookie,
and the $64,000 question-how much money do I want to throw at this project :D
could probably think of more things. :D :D :D

MLR,
You do know that hearing protection is available and highly reccommended :o Have you thought about using a smaller hammer when indexing the primers???
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

User avatar
montana_charlie
PostsCOLON 1413
JoinedCOLON Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:35 pm
LocationCOLON West of Great Falls, Montana

Post by montana_charlie » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:51 pm

oneokie wroteCOLONKelly, where to start:
I will read Kelley's response with great interest...
Last edited by 1 on montana_charlie, edited 0 times in total.
Retired...twice. Now, just raisin' cows and livin' on borrowed time.

Kelley O. Roos
PostsCOLON 944
JoinedCOLON Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:55 pm

Post by Kelley O. Roos » Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:41 pm

Yes, I see now, way to involved.

Wouldn't be any fun if this sport wasn't involved & makes one intellegnt :shock:

All kinds of advise can be given & all of that advice would subjective. For the most part guys, make this BPCR shooting to involved.

Now, for $64,000.00 I'll build your perfect load for your prefered rifle :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, what's your goal/goals :?: oneokie.

Kelley O.

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:08 pm

My goal is to hopefully find the right combination for an original 1894 Winchester in 38-55 that will group decently. 18 twist
Have tried many smokeless powders with store bought bullets that evidently are way too hard. :oops:
The reason I asked about the hardness tester.
Wanting to try bullets of softer composition to see if things will improve. After reading on this forum and several others, came to the conclusion that softer bullets are the way to go.
.3795 inch groove and .379 inch bullet is the largest that will chamber. Thinking upset here.
And velocity is not something that is high on the list. Accuracy out to 100 yds. is # 1. :wink: If and when the right load is found, then maybe start speeding things up. :o
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

Kelley O. Roos
PostsCOLON 944
JoinedCOLON Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:55 pm

Post by Kelley O. Roos » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:23 pm

oneokie,

What made you think your store bought bullets were to hard :?: Maybe those bullets weren't hard enough.

Major problem to over come, will be fouling, in your 1894 using black powder.

What are you using your 1894 for mainly :?: Are you planing on using black powder exclusiveley :?:

I have an original 1893 Marlin in 38-55 & the problem with it is excessive head space, not saying that is the case with your 1894. I haven't had a chance to fix that head space issue yet, other then that head space problem the rifle shoots fine.

Kelley O.

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:55 pm

Kelly,
The hardness issue came to mind after doing a lot of reading about the necessity for the bullet to obdurate upset when fired to fill the lands properly. The store bought bullets are BHN 16, 92-6-2, bevel base. Seems like the bevel base is a no-no also, from what I have read.

I am planning on plinking with the 1894 with the cast bullets.

Powder choice is still up in the air until I can find a combination with better accuracy than what I have now. The fouling issue is something that I can live with.

One of the loads that I tried was 21 grains of IMR 4895, 246 grain cast bullet, (BB) 5 shot group at 30 yards was 8 inches, with 2 keyholes. This leads me to think that this particular load was too "hot" for the bullet. (Stripped the rifling)
Other loads have been with 16 grains of 2400, groups are in the 3.5 inch range. Heavier charges of 2400 have resulted in larger groups.

Factory loaded ammo and my reloads with jacket bullets are accurate enough to suit me as to what I think accuracy is acceptable.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

Kelley O. Roos
PostsCOLON 944
JoinedCOLON Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:55 pm

Post by Kelley O. Roos » Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:11 pm

oneokie,

Try a gas check lead bullet, with a gas check installed of course.

2F Swiss would be a decient starting black powder.

Large pistol primers, 150M Fed. for black powder.

No over primer pocket wad. With a gas check you may not need a over powder wad, I'll ask a friend tomorrow as he shoots alot of lever guns.

DGL, SPG would be OK for lubing with black powder. There's a good smokelss lube except I don't remember it's name off the top of my head.

As you know keeping the variables to a minimun is important.

Kelley O.

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:04 pm

Kelly,
Thank you for the information. As to the lube, have been told that the Lee Liquid Alox is a decent lube to try, have some and am going to try it and see if it helps.

montana_charlie, thanks for the charts.

Now I need to make time to play with this thing! :D

Will report results.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

Ironramrod
PostsCOLON 97
JoinedCOLON Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:36 pm
LocationCOLON Roughrider country

Post by Ironramrod » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:23 pm

Oneokie,

I use LBT blue lube in my .45/70 smokeless loads with 40 gr. H4198 in a Browning 1885 Hiwall. There are others, but this is a very good lube, and I've never had any problems with it. Loads shoot very well from 90 deg to below zero. Check it out at www.lbtmoulds.com

Regards

RMulhern
PostsCOLON 322
JoinedCOLON Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:15 pm
LocationCOLON Down South

Tester?

Post by RMulhern » Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:15 pm

oneokie

Hmmmm....jus think of all the bullets you'd done had cast up....if you had ordered your lead from ole John Walters rather than messing around with junk lead you don't know what is??

It ain't ROCKET SCIENCE and ya don't havta have 5 PHDs to make GOOD BULLETS!

:lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol:

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:36 pm

IronJaw, how right you are!

But look at how much information I have received here. A little knowledge goes a long way :!:
I have quite a variety of different hardnesses to play with. And with the price of components going up almost daily, I think I may save a small amount of money in the long run. :D
Have also learned that I need to do a better job of segregating the range lead that I scrounge. :oops:

Kelly O, and montana_charlie, as to the $$$$$ mentioned; if there was that much available, it would probably be spent on a Class 3 :twisted: :twisted:

Dang, I love the smell of burnt gunpowder :D
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:00 pm

Update on accuracy load development.

Have gotten groups down to 1.375 inches at 30 yds. This is with the new short (2.080") cases. Bullet is having to jump about .100" to the lands.
Did try a five shot group with the bullet seated out to lightly engrave the lands, 2.750".

Thanks again for all the good information.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

User avatar
montana_charlie
PostsCOLON 1413
JoinedCOLON Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:35 pm
LocationCOLON West of Great Falls, Montana

Post by montana_charlie » Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:04 pm

oneokie wroteCOLONUpdate on accuracy load development.

Have gotten groups down to 1.375 inches at 30 yds.
Truthfully, at thirty yards, .375" is more like what you should see if you get the load worked out...but shooting thirty yards with a 45/70 is kinda problematical. The bullet may not have time to fully stabalize.
Many won't truxt a load until it's tested at 300+ yards, but you need at least 100.
This is with the new short (2.080") cases. Bullet is having to jump about .100" to the lands.
That 20 thousandths between your case mouth and chamber end may be a problem. Do you get leading in the throat?
CM
Retired...twice. Now, just raisin' cows and livin' on borrowed time.

oneokie
PostsCOLON 59
JoinedCOLON Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:43 pm
LocationCOLON Somewhere in Oklahoma

Post by oneokie » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:08 pm

montana_charlie wrote
Do you get leading in the throat?
Have not noticed any leading in the throat, but have noticed a buildup of lube in the front end of the chamber. Will have to dig out the older 2.125 long cases and do some more testing to see if using the longer cases will eliminate the lube buildup in the chamber. Previous load tests with the long cases was done solely to see if case length had a significant effect on accuracy, which it did not at that point in time.

Now that I have a load that will nearly duplicate accuracy with factory loaded ammo (JSP) will start fine tuning with some of the things that I have learned on this forum.
Truthfully, at thirty yards,
I know it is not the proper distance, but was wanting to do the majority of the load development at a distance that would provide a good probability of the shots being on paper, (8.5x11").
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

BUTTON_POST_REPLY