Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Guy Neill

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    1,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Guy Neill

  • Rank
    Beyond it All
  • Birthday 09/04/1951

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

2,252 profile views
  1. As I read it, he said the lighter bullets were hitting lower than the heavier bullets. The heavier, slower bullet was in the bore longer, and would be expected to hit higher than the lighter, faster bullet. Oh, okay, I see your confusion. I simply misstated. It should have read that the heavier bullet strikes higher. The math should confirm. The longer time translates to higher impact. Now if I could type what I had in mind and was trying to say. Thanks for the information.
  2. zzt - I'd be interested in your explaining #1. Thanks.
  3. I believe I have worked it out. Multiplying by 2 seems to be correct. So, t = (2s/v) for the barrel time. I won't go into the derivation unless someone really wants to know.
  4. I thought I was using the distance divided by the velocity - in a spreadsheet from some time back. Looking again, it multiplies by 2 for some reason I cannot presently determine. Therefore, your numbers look good to me (until or unless I can determine why the old spreadsheet multiplied by 2). My first thought was that it dealt with v = sqrt(2as), but there is no reason to bring the acceleration into this. Still, the principle is the same, and does show the lighter bullet exiting the barrel sooner.
  5. We normally think of a heavy bullet as going slower than a lighter bullet, meaning it is in the bore longer during recoil. With the same powder charge, the lighter bullet should be going faster, resulting in the lower point of impact. Here's an example.. If you know the muzzle velocity, we can calculate the time in bore for a given length barrel. For instance, a 5" barrel with the heavier bullet going 950 fps (171 PF) at the muzzle will have a bore time of 0.000789 sec. A 140gr bullet going 1000 fps (140 PF) will have a bore time of 0.00075 sec. Thereby we can see that the hea
  6. The benefit of a slower powder is that it will generally give more gas volume at a given power factor, making the comp more effective. Since you have the Sport Pistol, I'd try it first - especially since components are not as available as they once were. Do you have a chronograph to help develop a load? Whether or not you can feel the difference between a 135 power factor and a 140 power factor depends on your sensitivity to the recoil. If your present 135 power factor load is doing what you want with respect to reliability and accuracy, I don't know that there's a re
  7. For those manuals for which I've compiled data, the OAL came from various sources. Some, when there was also factory ammunition being manufactured, followed the OAL length established for the factory ammunition. As an example, I used 1.150 for some 9mm Luger loads as that had already been established in the factory ammunition for that company. The example you mention for the 147gr may have come from the ogive making the deeper seating necessary for function. Some were from p[personal experience. Some from testing. Historically the 200 H&G LSWC 45 Auto has been
  8. The published OAL is that that was used in developing the loads. It does not necessarily represent a minimum or a maximum. Seating deeper will normally raise the pressure, though that is one of the reasons to start load and work up with charge weights. If they do not list a firearm it was tested in, it's most likely it was only fired in a pressure gun. Thereby, function in a firearm must be determined - again, working up. Overall, it is not just because of pressure limitations, but that is obviously a prime concern. The process of starting low and working up allows the rel
  9. Large rifle primers are taller than large pistol primers, meaning you may not be able to seat them flush or below flush. Above flush could result in a slam fire in autos, or bind the cylinder in revolvers. The primer pocket can be cut for the large rifle primers, but there is risk it would leave the web quite thin. Best to avoid using the large rifle in large pistol.
  10. You might try chamfering the case mouth ID. The inside corner on new cases will sometimes cause this.
  11. I expect you do not need to crimp. However, every gun is different. You might load two or three rounds, measure their overall length, then chamber them two or three times and remeasure. to see if the OAL has changed. If it has, it may indicate a need to crimp. But repeated chambering should not be really common, with only the single chambering to shoot being the common situation. In this regard, you might measure the OAL after each chambering of the cartridge(s) to see what happens.
  12. One of the peculiarities of the specifications is that there is overlap in the dimensions. A large pistol primer pocket is specified as 0.117 - 0.123 inches deep. A large rifle primer has a height specification of 0.123 - 0.136 inches. Thereby, with minimum height primers and maximum deep pockets, you can get flush seated. The caution is that the very next primer may not be minimum.. Note also that the maximum large pistol primer height is 0.126 inch, larger than the deepest large pistol primer pocket. Odd that this s
  13. you might check with Cylinder & Slide.
  14. The original "Little Shop of Horrors" - 1959 or so. The Wind and the Lion
  15. I meant to add that the low 40's does not seem that it should have the effect you are seeing. Contact CCI and describe the problem to them and see what action they will take.
×
×
  • Create New...