Buffalo Bore Bullets pulled to dissect

Status
Not open for further replies.

*****DO NOT TRY THIS******
This guy was gutsy enough to do this....was a terrible idea on his part, but it helps support my assumption.
 
Last edited:
Blended like several batches of the same whiskey to get a uniform product. Even powder varies slightly from batch to batch.
 
Palladan44 said:
Pressure signs are NOT meaningless in straight walled pistol cases. If i ever see them, i back a load off until they go away. I tend to see pressure signs at the upper end of published data. FOR EXAMPLE

24 grains of WW 296 in 357 mag under a 158 gr. JHP in my s&w 586 will top hat the primers, and extractions are a bit sticky. With 23.2 grains there is no flattened primers and the brass almost falls out. Ive seen it enough to know it has some validity.

11.2 grains of blue dot in 10mm over 180 grain JHP in my Glock 40 will slightly flatten the primer, and make a larger bulge near the head. Backing it off to 10.8 grains and no such pressure signs.

"Pressure signs" are nowhere near a perfect science, but ive seen enough to know they exist and they tell you something, in certain circumstances. All depends on the combination.
Ive only seen flattened primers in HOT ammunition, or ammunition thats loaded below specs, so if youre seeing flattened primers or having sticky extractions in whats supposed to be a "mild" load, I would seriously re look at the combination.

For what its worth, BB and Underwoods brass shows "pressure signs" letting me know that theyre up there near the limits.
Click to expand...
As I said 2yrs ago, pressure signs are meaningless in straight wall revolver cartridges. Sticky extraction is caused by other factors and primers lie. When Linebaugh and crew did their destructive testing, they had guns blow that showed no "pressure signs" prior to catastrophic failure. How are you going to see pressure signs at 100% safety margin???

Further, there's no need for any speculation on the subject of Buffalo Bore and their powder. We KNOW they use non-canister powders because Tim Sundles told us this +20yrs ago on the old Sixgunner.com forum. There's been some speculation as to which powder he uses in the Dangerous Game loads but we think it's a non-canister grade of AA#9.
 
CraigC said:
As I said 2yrs ago, pressure signs are meaningless in straight wall revolver cartridges. Sticky extraction is caused by other factors and primers lie. When Linebaugh and crew did their destructive testing, they had guns blow that showed no "pressure signs" prior to catastrophic failure. How are you going to see pressure signs at 100% safety margin???

Further, there's no need for any speculation on the subject of Buffalo Bore and their powder. We KNOW they use non-canister powders because Tim Sundles told us this +20yrs ago on the old Sixgunner.com forum. There's been some speculation as to which powder he uses in the Dangerous Game loads but we think it's a non-canister grade of AA#9.
Click to expand...
If there is a "magic formula" of powder that burns just right and creates maximum performance without overpresssure, you'd think that the manufacturers of canister powders would want to formulate that themselves and sell it to try to get an edge over the competition....

Wait, they already do. BE-86, Lil Gun, Alliant 300-MP are a few that come to mind.

Pressure testing equipment at the lab says what the pressure is in that one test barrel..... when there are millions of different barrels out there, different lengths, different chamber tolerances, different amounts of fouling, different twist rates, ones with rust or pitting, different amounts of wear, fired at different temperatures, altitudes, etc. Etc. Which all in theory can effect the pressure of the round. Buffalo Bore still has to leave room for error for all this...... all of the above mentioned could be a heavy duty Ruger that's modern and "in good working condition" I'm impressed with Buffalo Bores ability to complete the cutting edge performance while remaining safe and staying in business.
 
You don't get it. It's not about a magic formula. This is about variation and minimizing tolerances in manufacturing. There are unavoidable variations (at least while maintaining cost) between lots of powder. It doesn't matter 'what' powder it is, none are exempt. There are variations between guns and bullets. The whole reason for the safety margin is to account for these variations. The use of non-canister grade powders is to minimize or even eliminate this lot-to-lot variation. To do the kind of fine tuning with regards to pressure and velocity that the average person is unable to do, seemingly without regards for cost. While most factory ammo is going to be well under SAAMI max pressures to allow for manufacturing variations, BB ammo is going to be right at it and they can do that for two reasons. Stringent quality control on much smaller quantities of ammunition and they are not a member of SAAMI.
 
Walkalong said:
I tried it once with equal amounts of HS-6 & AA #5, pretty similar powders, right? Well, I started low and the velocities in the two different applications I tried it in were scary, glad I started low.

This is not a post on how to get more velocity, there is no free lunch, pressure comes along for the ride. I've never tried that again.

Y'all be careful out there, especially if you are trying to equal Buffalo Bore loads at safe pressures.
Click to expand...
LOL!!! Yeah, roger that! I'm fine with my pokey-slow 1000fps 200gr. C-P LWFN loads, thanks. It pokes holes through things. :)

Be safe out there, people. Remember, you are playing with dynamite. Almost literally.
 
CraigC said:
Trying to read pressure signs in a handgun is about like throwing chicken bones to predict the future.
Click to expand...
Wait... are you saying that DOESN'T work? :eek: No wonder I'm not a gazillionairre! :(

Chronographs and recoil comparisons aside, we do have some clues but without pressure testing equipment, we might as well be using The Magic 8-Ball.
 
Palladan44 said:


This guy was gutsy enough to do this....was a terrible idea on his part, but it helps support my assumption.
Click to expand...



I don't understand what the big deal is? He used a different bullet and different brass.(nickle extracts easier) How far was the chrono? He tested 7 rounds and two were not consistent,

Heck just go to the Hodgdon website and use their data. Yes, they used a Nosler bullet and a 10 inch test barrel but still go over 1400 FPS

1400 fps does a little more matter??

Probably other powders would achieve the same.
 
Last edited:
Rule3 said:
I don't understand what the big deal is? He used a different bullet and different brass.(nickle extracts easier) How far was the chrono? He tested 7 round and two were not consistent,

Heck just go to the Hodgdon website and use their data. Yes, they used a Nosler bullet and a 10 inch test barrel but go over 1400 FPS

1400 fps doe a little more matter??
Click to expand...
It's like the speed junkies at the quarter-mile track. They NEED that extra hundredth of a second off their track times. 10.01 isn't good enough, it has to be UNDER 10.00 (I know, a Prius will do that these days but I'm old and remember well when a 10-second 1/4 mile was FAST!) I saw many a blown engine in bikes that the rider's just HAD to get that extra speed out of. I also saw lots of really FAST! bikes and rode a few that weren't sluggish. I had a 1000cc Katana that would turn 10's and under pretty consistently. "Had" being the operative phrase because I blew 3rd gear racing at Bithlo and burned a hole in the top end. :scrutiny: I also had a Triumph Tiger that had a hard time getting out of its own way. Also "had" because it was a maintenance nightmare. I learned some lessons from them that apply real good to guns. ;)
 
So say I load an absolute ____ ton of any given round, and I want to keep consistency throughout the course of making these rounds without having to recalibrate, retest the load. The powder I choose is say W-231 however I have 200lbs of this powder, in say 10 different 20lb drums, that contain 3 different lot numbers/batch numbers......
So, in order to achieve homogeneity throughout my lot of say 200,000 rounds of ammunition is to mix all of this powder together at the beginning, then run the testing, then run the entire run without worry of the lot to lot variation?

Or am I understanding the whole "mixing" powder thing incorrectly??
 
Sort of but not really. The point is not 'just' absolutely consistency. The point is consistently very good. If a given lot is particularly slow, it may be mixed with a lot that is particularly fast until they get a desired result. Or maybe the slow lot is not used at all. Then there is the issue of "how much". While your published data may call for a maximum of say 25.0gr of canister grade 296, it may take 26.2gr of a particular blended lot of 297 (non-canister 296) to reach peak velocity and pressure. The point is that you can't really replicate the results without the proper testing equipment.

As an aside, is it me or does it seem like the word "canister" should have two N's???
 
CraigC said:
Sort of but not really. The point is not 'just' absolutely consistency. The point is consistently very good. If a given lot is particularly slow, it may be mixed with a lot that is particularly fast until they get a desired result. Or maybe the slow lot is not used at all. Then there is the issue of "how much". While your published data may call for a maximum of say 25.0gr of canister grade 296, it may take 26.2gr of a particular blended lot of 297 (non-canister 296) to reach peak velocity and pressure. The point is that you can't really replicate the results without the proper testing equipment.

As an aside, is it me or does it seem like the word "canister" should have two N's???
Click to expand...
canister (n.)
late 15c., "basket," from Latin canistrum "wicker basket" for bread, fruit, flowers, etc., from Greek kanystron "basket made from reed," from kanna (see cane (n.)). It came to mean "small metal receptacle" (1711) through influence of unrelated can (n.). As short for canister shot, it is attested from 1801, so called for its casing.
 
The greatest variation in powder ive seen with the so-called same name was the difference between Hercules 2400 and the newer Alliant 2400.

Back in the day, 2400 was used in 30-06s 30-30s
M1 carbines just to name a few.....
Obviously times have changed, as so the niche of 2400 shifted from being a rifle powder that worked well in magnum handguns....to just a handgun powder..... thus, I think the burn rate was sped up a bit to run optimally in 44 Magnum and 357, etc.
The newer 2400 runs like a Slow Power Pistol, where the old stuff ran more like WW-296.
 
Palladan44 said:


This guy was gutsy enough to do this....was a terrible idea on his part, but it helps support my assumption.
Click to expand...


Watching that video made me cringe. He got lucky as he just jumped right to an over max loading with no workup at all. He got lucky and maybe doesn’t understand the pressure curve is not linear and that nice Ruger could have grenaded in his hand. Very poor style to post that and not mention all the common sense safety stuff he skipped. That could very well make someone with little experience attempt the same and have drastically different results.
I’m glad it worked for him, and he got what he was after, but at the least he should have included some disclaimers that how he did it was not the correct way to do it.
 
bullseye308 said:
Watching that video made me cringe. He got lucky as he just jumped right to an over max loading with no workup at all. He got lucky and maybe doesn’t understand the pressure curve is not linear and that nice Ruger could have grenaded in his hand. Very poor style to post that and not mention all the common sense safety stuff he skipped. That could very well make someone with little experience attempt the same and have drastically different results.
I’m glad it worked for him, and he got what he was after, but at the least he should have included some disclaimers that how he did it was not the correct way to do it.
Click to expand...
You're correct. But the first sentence of my o.p. spells it out, and I mentioned in the post that this guy was acting out a terrible idea.
 
Last edited:
Rule3 said:
I don't understand what the big deal is? He used a different bullet and different brass.(nickle extracts easier) How far was the chrono? He tested 7 rounds and two were not consistent,

Heck just go to the Hodgdon website and use their data. Yes, they used a Nosler bullet and a 10 inch test barrel but still go over 1400 FPS.
Click to expand...
Jacketed data for a Nosler bullet that no longer exists, no less. Too bad about that, but I'm not surprised it was a slow seller. With two cores, it must have been pricey. Sounds like a nice hunting bullet for a .357 Maximum or a .35 Remington in a Contender. Which is a HUGE market, obvs! /s Not that the continued availability of the bullet matters to the load data...

To play the devil's advocate a little, that WFN bullet is presumably a little shorter than the Nosler (all-lead construction except the lube grooves and no hollow-point) so there may be a tiny bit more case volume, and even hard-cast lead should drag on the barrel less than gilding metal, so if a proper load was worked up with pressure testing equipment, it wouldn't be surprising if it was slightly over 15 grains of Lil'Gun at SAAMI spec.

OTOH, playing this game with a seven-shooter??? Yikes. Looks like there's a lot less steel in those cylinder walls than my six-shot GP100. Do the seven-shot cylinders come from the same steel and heat treatment as the six-shot?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

6
  • Locked
Buffalo Bore .357 loads
Replies
9
Views
1K
griff383
G
ssyoumans
  • Locked
Duplicating Buffalo Bore 357 Mag Low Flash Short Barrel Loads
Replies
5
Views
817
ssyoumans
ssyoumans
C
  • Locked
Replicating Buffalo Bore Loads
Replies
16
Views
6K
blarby
B
Palladan44
  • Locked
The Glock Smile and 40 and 10mm reloading
Replies
15
Views
2K
FROGO207
FROGO207
S
  • Locked
Pulling plated bullets
Replies
4
Views
657
Strykervet
S
Back
Top