Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by jak67429, Nov 28, 2022.
I use a brass rod from a toilet bowl float.. Cheap
Start w/ a
5" 1911 firing a 200gr Lead Round Nose / 6.0gr Bullseye /OAL 1.215" / Shank depth 0.258"
--> 17,800 psi / 974 fps
Convert to a
5" 450 BushMaster firing that same 200gr LRN / 6.0gr Bullseye / OAL 2.107" / shank depth same 0.258"
--> 5,313 psi / 629 fps
That Bushmaster load geometry is near identical to a the situation wherein a 45 ACP bullet is driven ~ 9 tenths of an inch into the 1911 barrel fired w/ same 6.0gr Bullseye --> totally safe outcome.
Probably takes up less room than a kinetic bullet puller too.
Now you mention it...
Combustion of powder is not linear nor exactly predictable. Powder does not burn like a candle and exponential processes can go to hell in a hand basket in an instant. I just learned last year that the old assumption that pressures rise evenly through the case during combustion, is wrong. It was an eye opener to find that these modern, high pressure, F Class type cartridges have localized high pressures of 80 Kpsia right in the case neck/shoulder area. Who would have thought that! (a cartridge manufacturing engineer told me this at a Regional) One other thing about loose powder, some of that stuff may not ignite fully until it is blown down the barrel. I have no idea what will result from that, but it could be localized high pressure.
There are simply too many unknowns with blowing squibs out with reduced charges. I am sure it is safe until something unpredictable happens. I am going to say, the safest, surest method is to go Caveman. Beat the bullet out. Thinking makes my head hurt anyway.
Harvey Donaldson took some .219 Wasp brass that had had the shoulder set back but the neck left long without trimming and chambered a barrel for it. He hoped for reduced erosion but I don't recall that it made a lot of difference.
Elmer was indeed a proud father, which made him ignore the reasons his system was not adopted. As Erasmus said "What father does not think his squint eyed child more beautiful than Venus herself?" We don't know why his tube system nor duplex system were put on the ash heap of history, but I am sure it was for good reasons.
The ash heap of history is piled high with great ideas that failed in some teeny tiny way, or the effort of which, was more costly than the benefit.
I do know that staggered burn rate propellants were used in rocket motors and gas generating systems. These propellants were mixed in a binder and cast. The consistency of these propellants was like that of a cheese and the layers burnt in order (more or less). Hard cast propellants in a layer cake configuration prevented the mixing of propellants, which is something you would expect in a system that Elmer proposed.
There has been work in stratified powder loads, going back to smokeless priming charges under black by Harry Pope et al. Dick Casull overloaded .45s with Unique, 2400, and a cap of Bullseye for a final kick. Obsoleted by W 296.
BLUF: I am not in any way advocating the "interesting squib solution" method.
(And I do carry sectioned brass rods in my range bag.) But there in simply too
much history surrounding fast powders, larges cases, heavy bullets, and reduced
loads to not think there in pony in that there squib pile somewhere.
Because fairly-low charges of Bullseye & Unique have been classic 405gr/45-70 fare
in the BP-equivalent game for as long as I've been shooting -- (and by extension in
the squib-cleaning game we saw in the OP's 1st post.) I also began to wonder why
W231/HP-38 aren't also in that game. Lo & behold, they/(it) are/(is).
Take a look at both the referenced and the included link as applied to the squib-fix discussion that started this thread:
> In 1999 we published our small treatise on the results and topic - Modern and Historic Developments
> in CAS velocity loads "The Use of Pistol Powders in Rifle Cartridges" .
> Since then another 50k bullets have been launched downrange. Some might say to confirm and further
> refine the previous observations; others might say it's been entirely in pursuit of the "art of flying slow",
> yet others might argue that it's all been an effort to more finely tune the gmdr internal ballistics predictor
> [an IBP specifically designed to predict low pressure and low velocity loads].
> Maybe there's a bit of truth in all.
Keys: Fast, and Double-Based.
Very interesting, but:
1. No pressure data, but hey, the primers look ok.
Apparently they did their shooting before the Trail Boss fad but Hodgdon shows .45-70-405 and 12 gr TB for only 971 fps at 24500 CUP as the starting load for Trapdoors. So I wonder what some of those other pistol powders are doing in that realm.
2. No mention of position sensitivity. My loads and theirs cross only one place, .44-40 + 700X, where I had velocity change muzzle up vs muzzle down before the shot of 82 fps. Titegroup was worse at 127 and W231 was much worse at 192.
I saw a picture of an old smokeless .45-70 pulled down, loaded with what looked like Sharpshooter, nearly a case full. No position effect there.
classic (and near universal) 45-70 load.
Again, not a recommendation for squib clearance technique, but also not an unheard-of
load translation involving simply having more case free volume w/ fast powders.
I have removed a couple such squibbs at the range by using my brass rod and light taps to push the bullet out of the forcing cone and back into the cylinder and case. The key is multiple light taps. If you pound it with a a sledge hammer you will expand the bullet and make it stick worse.
The light tap method is very hard for some folks to accept but it works.
I tried that with a cleaning rod and used the....handle I guess I will say....of a multi tool as the "hammer". Holding the folded up multi tool in your hand trying to smack a cleaning rod will force you not to hit it hard, that rod on the palm of your hand does not feel good. I did not have any luck, but I only had it happen once.
Separate names with a comma.