BlueBoy69
-
Posts
361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by BlueBoy69
-
-
The 22 Grendel still seems to be a bit of a wildcat cartridge at present, so all the normal caveats will apply with its use. It seems to be relativity easy to make cases at least, well depending on the route taken to create them.
Using the 6.5 Grendel case as the starting point and then directly or sequentially necking it down would seem to be the easier route. Certainly easier than going from a 7.62×39 case to 22 Grendel, which will take quite a few stages.
Going from the 220 Russian is another option, which may be a simple fire forming job with potential neck turning. It may however be something a little more complex, but potentially not as hard as going via the 7.62×39 case route.
Then also there's the option of using 22 PPC USA or 6 m PPC USA cases made by Norma to produce your 22 Grendel cases. The former similar to but potentially easier than the 220 Russian route, the latter a bit like the 6.5 Grendel option.
In most if not all cases, annealing will need to be done at the end, or between case forming stages. This is a potential pain in the bum if you don't have a tool to do this.
I guess it's all down to how much performance you want and how much hassle is involved in getting there. The 22 Grendel has got a bit more case capacity and hence performance than the next to identical case capacity and performance 22 PPC (22 PPC USA) and .224 Valkyrie cases, but the 22 BR matches, or trumps its performance by a small margin.
For simplicity and even more performance you could just go with a 22-250 chambered rifle, but with a fast twist. Another option for simplicity, but accepting slightly less performance, you could just go with a 22 PPC or PPC USA, and for the latter you can still buy Norma cases; as I know personally.
-
10 hours ago, outlanda said:
As Bruce has asked; what is good accuracy for a 'precision' semi auto - if there is such a thing. A scope with high mag is probably required for best results and as mostly semi's are used with low mag, red dot sights and open sights, 2" at 50 yds with be quite an achievement. Heavy triggers don't help and anyway, after finding some ammunition it likes, why shoot groups with a semi auto when its not the intended purpose.
For me the rifle produces one slightly larger than one bullet hole 10 shot groups at 25 yards in an enclosed (underground) range. At 100 yards between 1.0-2.0 inches depending on the weather and ammo available.
Both of the above figures are roughly the same as my two previous .22LR sporting bolt actions. The accuracy is more than enough for me, as it's only really used for small game up to 100 yards. If I want to take longer shots I'll use my 22 or 6 mm PPC rifles, which are both bug hole shooters!
I don't really know why you are so adamant that 22 semi-autos can't be both accurate and precise; mine is both? They aren't all cheaply built AR-15 or similar military look-a-likes by the way, though you seem to think they are for some reason only known unto yourself? Good quality semi-autos do not have to cost a bomb either, though mine was second hand and cost about £450 (see image).
-
I guess someone who thinks .22 LR semi-autos are inaccurate needs a go on my Rimfire Magic RM-22. It's at least as accurate as my previous sporting bolt actions, a SAKO Quad and a CZ 455. Unlike them however by the time you managed to fire a few rounds from either bolt action, the RM-22 can put all ten rounds in roughly one ragged hole at 25 yards. And that's 's not silly rapid fire it as fast as you can shooting, just fire, re-aim, fire, re-aim, etc., until the mag's empty.
Obviously none of them were not as accurate as my old Anschütz Match 54, but that was a nice solidly made basic single-shot match rifle.
As to the US AR-15 like 22 rimfire rifles, I've no experience with them as I'm not very keen on faux military rifles of any kind.
-
1 hour ago, Popsbengo said:
I use Wera torque tools, about £65. German quality.
I've got some of them too. Quite a few actually.
-
The figures of 1 to 5 N·m (Newton metres) converts to about 8.9 to 44.3 lbf·in (pound-force inches, aka inch-pounds or pound-inches depending on your preference).
Conversely 18 and 50 lbf·in respectively convert to 2.0 and 5.6 N·m. As such the Draper Expert tool set mentioned is just out of the required torque range.Personally I have a Wheeler Fat Wrench, which covers a 10-65 lbf·in (1.1 to 7.3 N·m) torque range, plus a load of other tools that were hangovers from being a cyclist.
-
-
5 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:
Exactly. This is why I said above: "A primed case is considered to be a "live round" ........ If he primes cases he doesn't have permission for then he's breaking the law - to hold ammo you don't have permission for is a breach of the Act. ........"
Yes, as I said originally; either below or above if you want to scroll upwards.
6 hours ago, BlueBoy69 said:As far as I'm aware it's only assembled ammunition. Ammunition being classed as assembled as soon as a live primer is placed into a case. You can have all the components, just not any assembled (or simply primed) ammunition. Well until the law is changed.
-
56 minutes ago, Mattnall said:
Primed cases are not live rounds and are not considered as such (except in a public place without lawful excuse according to case law iirc). Primed cases are to be dealt with in the same way as primers when it comes to buying or selling only but not possession (I think s35 of the VCR Act refers).
Once you make a live round you need authority to possess that calibre/cartridge you've just made.
Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but a primed case, which isn't for a firearm or ammunition you possess still sounds like an offence to me? The text, from Section 35 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act (link), is below.
(4)It is an offence for a person to buy or to attempt to buy—
- (a)a primer to which this section applies, or
- (b)an empty cartridge case incorporating such a primer,
unless he falls within subsection (5).
(5)A person falls within this subsection if—
- (a)he is a registered firearms dealer;
- (b)he sells by way of any trade or business either primers or empty cartridge cases incorporating primers, or both;
- (c)he holds a certificate authorising him to possess a firearm of a relevant kind;
- (d)he holds a certificate authorising him to possess ammunition of a relevant kind;
- (e)he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection (6) to acquire a primer to which this section applies;
- (f)he is entitled, by virtue of the 1968 Act, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 or any other enactment and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty, to have possession, without a certificate, of a firearm of a relevant kind or of ammunition of a relevant kind;
- (g)he is in possession of a certificate authorising another person to have possession of such a firearm, or of such ammunition, and has that other person's authority to purchase the primer or empty cartridge case on his behalf; or
- (h)he is authorised by regulations made by the Secretary of State to purchase primers or cartridge cases of the type in question.
-
As far as I'm aware it's only assembled ammunition. Ammunition being classed as assembled as soon as a live primer is placed into a case. You can have all the components, just not any assembled (or simply primed) ammunition. Well until the law is changed.
-
1/4 MOA (15 seconds of arc) is approximately 0.0727 millradians. As such it would seem your scope may be set up in Strelok for 1/4 MOA clicks?
-
5 minutes ago, banus02 said:
good evening blueboy 69, i have a ruger precision rifle with a 1 in 10 twist .so this should be ok ?
It would seem likely that it would be stable. The specs for the MME 220 gr BT bullets are:
Overall Length: ≈1.414 inches (≈35.92 mm)
Plastic Tip Length: 0.057 inches (≈1.44 mm)
Weight: ≈220 grains (14.26 grams)
You can use those details to plug into the various online stability calculators to do your own calculations.
I don't have any ballistic drag data for it, but when I test some loads, I'll use the Labradar to get this information. -
1 hour ago, banus02 said:
sorry if off topic but could the mme bullet be used subsonic in a 308 win rifle?
As far as I know it's 308 cartridge agnostic, though I'd imagine some smaller cartridges (30 Carbine, etc.) would have a problem using it 😄 I guess it's all down to if your rifle has a fast enough twist rate?
The MME 220 gr BT bullet is about 1.414" (35.92 mm) long. So at subsonic speeds (lets say 1,070 fps), to be gyroscopically stable it will need a twist rate of about 1:11". Obviously that's a very crude estimation, but probably not too far off.
When I enquired about heavy-weight 308 BT bullets, Pete Watson stated in an email that he could make any weight up to 250'ish grains.
-
I have a suppressed (a Wildcat Evolution) Remington Model 700 SPS Tactical AAC-SD in 300 AAC Blackout, its 5R barrel has a twist rate of 1:7".
I normally use 165 grain H&N round nose copper-plated, plastic coated bullets loaded to subsonic velocity for plinking, but they are hard to get now.
When fired from the suppressed rifle they make 'very' little noise. The firing report is more akin to an air-rifle than a firearm. The main noise heard is the bullet's impact with the target.
I have a few other bullets to develop loads for, these can be seen in the attached image.
Left is an NOE '311-232-FN PB AZ1' 235 grain plain-based cast lead bullet. The middle is a custom 220 grain ball-tip subsonic expander produced by Pete Watson of MME for me. The right an NOE '311-232-FN GC AZ1' 236 grain gas-checked cast lead bullet. The two lead bullets were cast and sized (to 0.309") by me.
When they finally arrive, I've also got a job lot of 240 grain Sierra Match Kings to develop a load for too.
-
Sorry, I keep forgetting not everyone wants to reload!
As stated by RobinC and seconded by Popsbengo, buy some preloaded commercial/MIL-Surp ammo that is known to work well in 1:7"-1:8" twist firearms. Try this ammo and if the groups are still pants, then the problem may be down to a sow's ear of a gun unfortunately.
Can't help you with ammo selection as I don't have any firearms in 223 Remington, mine are mostly chambered for odd-ball calibres.
-
Attached is a QuickLOAD export Excel file that lists a range of powders 'supposedly' suitable for use with the 223 Remington when loaded with a 77 grain Sierra Match King to a COAL of 2.260", and fired from a 12" barrelled firearm. The maximum chamber pressure is as per CIP (4,300 bar/62,366 PSI). I can do different pressure levels, bullets, COALs, etc...
Be aware it's just a guide, but it does give you an idea, if you reload, what powders will likely give you the best burn percentage in your short barrel and potentially the highest muzzle velocity.
I'm not sure if you can do these power range analysis with Gordon's Reloading Tool, as I've only used it a bit and then only when it was non-registered access.
-
On 11/21/2021 at 1:48 PM, Popsbengo said:
I've 'seen' jackets fail on old .303 at Kingsbury - very strange to observe. I discounted this possibility as it's bargain bucket plinking ammo rather than expanding etc. My thoughts were very much related to the OP rather than some more theoretical appreciation. I have read a bit on ballistics but I'll defer to your knowledge as you certainly have wider experience.
I ran some numbers through a couple of stability calculators based on a few well known bullet designs, the difference between a 1:14, 1:10 & 1:8 twist just got more stable (I thought this validated my understanding).
Not wanting to hijack the post but am I right to think a bullet doesn't fly nose first (like an arrow)over the whole trajectory, rather as it starts to descend along trajectory the gyro forces tend to keep it nose-up?
As to loading advice for this short 223 Remington rifle, what exactly is the barrel length? Other than powder burn inefficiencies, what's the problem? A shorter barrel should be stiffer, but it will oscillate at a higher frequency, which I guess may make round tuning harder? You should be able to just take normal 223 load data for AR-15 style firearms, albeit the velocity will be lower. If you want better ballistic efficiency, use the load data given, but choose the faster burning powders.
I've seen 'jacket' separation/expansion many times on plated bullets, for example with H&N and the South African Frontier CMJ (frontierbullets.co.za) bullets (even though the latter says it never happens). You end up with little rectangular cuts in the paper target in the areas of the 'jacket' that has failed. Not seen it on true jacketed bullets, but I'm sure I will. (Maybe I need to put some .22 Hornet light-jacket bullets in my 22 PPC and fire them at silly speeds?)
Yeah, of the online calculators I've seen, all just calculate gyroscopic stability, not dynamic stability or the bullet's tractability. Hence most are just guides, and real world shooting is required.
The bullets pitch and yaw downrange depend on its gyroscopic stability, dynamic stability and the tractability, along with any initial yaw (see starred later comment), metrological conditions, etc., etc... If over gyroscopically stabilised near the end of the trajectory when its coming down towards the target, then yes, it can can end up flying in a non optimal orientation. The drag also affects the stability and this the problem people get when their bullets are in the transonic region of flight downrange, as the drag commonly jumps to a high level as the local speed of sound is reached.
If you want to know if the bullet will follow the trajectory, you'd have to plug the data into the tractability condition equation (link and below)... good luck!
It's all a bit complicated to be honest. I say just make sure it's at least gyroscopically stable and then go shoot a few rounds and see what happens!
*** The factors such as bullet jump, throat conditions, round concentricity, crown condition and barrel movement are not the only ones that can affect initial bullet yaw. Charge ullage in combination with the ignition device (primer) can also cause a bullet to be driven into the rifling with a small initial yaw. You may not believe it, but it's been studied and proved to occur (if you want to believe the papers on it).
-
53 minutes ago, Popsbengo said:
There's no reason why a fast-twist barrel should fail to shoot a lighter bullet accurately, maybe a slower MV than desirable but extra spin isn't going to cause stability issues.
Well, there's a couple of reasons I can think of off my head.
The first is that a rapid expansion vermin (varmit/varmint) type with a thin jacket fired at high speed and high spin may break up, or fly erratically. Not experienced it myself, so can't say for sure of its validity, but it makes sense especially if the jacket is partially cut-through by the rifling.
The second is a bit more complex. Just because something is gyroscopically stable, doesn't mean it's dynamically stable. You have to remember that the gyroscopic and dynamic stability both change as the projectile moves downrange. This as the projectile's velocity and spin are both changing, as is its orientation in relation to the direction of flight.
I have a basic understanding, but don't profess to have full understanding of this (i.e. the interaction of the factors that result in dynamically stable, and then not stable bullet). It's something I need to teach myself and I've got plenty of books on ballistics to read. Unfortunately I need time to do this and a lot of peace and quite. As such I've just not got round to doing it.
Anyway, some bumph about the subject online can be found at the links below.
As mentioned in the first link, there's a projectile's (bullet's) tractability too. This most certainly could be a problem with long range rifle shooting. Not really the same, but 155 mm artillery projectiles can suffer from this problem when fired at very high elevations. Essentially they get near the apex and, as their velocity has decayed to practically zilch but they spin is still high, lets say after this point they don't tend to follow the expected trajectory!
-
You can use Doppler radar to track and give velocities of multiple projectiles, rockets, missiles, etc., as I used to do it all the time with sabotted, other types of ammunition and missiles that spat our or projected more than one thing. The control software and I presume internal hardware of the Labradar is unfortunately simply not set up for this sort of thing though.
If asked to instrument trials using shotguns, I'd have used smaller skyscreens or a light boxes, some example hardware in the links below.
http://www.prototypa.com/ls-01l-intelligent-light-gates-1
https://msinstruments.co.uk/pdf/858-opticaldetector.pdf
http://www.ballisticmeasurements.com/precision-light-screen.php
https://oehler-research.com/system-89/
https://sydortechnologies.com/ballistic-impact-testing/velocity-measurement/
For canister shot from far larger guns, bigger and very robust (and blooming heavy) skyscreens would be used, but only with ample angled steel plate protection over each set of three skyscreens. For note, NATO-certified testing requires six skyscreens, two pairs of three, all observing the same point in space. So from front to rear, skyscreens 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, with screen 1 paired with 6, 2 with 5, and 3 with 4. The screens would be levelled in X, Y and Z axes, and all would be surveyed in using a theodolite and related to the gun's trunnions and muzzle. No valid testing could be done with one pair of screens or sensors, though we might use one on its own, or a single pair to trigger certain photographic or radiographic systems.
Anyway enough waffle about what I used to do... try this, he (Paul Harrell) seems to be getting OK observed velocities (OVs) with his testing of shotguns with a basic (one channel, shudder) chronograph system.
-
I concur with what DaveT stated about first setting the LabRadar to pistol speed (600-1,600 fps), but I have no idea about the recoil-based trigger, as I use the acoustic (microphone) trigger? For the acoustic trigger, as long you get the trigger level right (setting '1' is the most sensitive) it should function fine.
A 22 RF certainly recoils, though not that much. Using the recoil trigger with 22 LR blow-back semi-auto may be a problematic as the gun first moves back, then the bolt moves back, and then the bolt is buffered (if one's present), or slams into the rear of the action. As such the gun should initially move backwards under recoil until pressure in the chamber drops and allows the base of the case to move the bolt. The gun would then be pushed forwards (decelerated) in a counter reaction to the bolt being pushed backwards. Finally the gun should again start to move backwards as the bolt is brought to rest by the buffer. I don't know how the recoil trigger copes with that sort of thing?
When I last used the Labradar with 22 LF, I found that as long as it was aligned with the target and there wasn't too much clutter forwards of the gun, you could see the projectiles for some distance. Here's data from CCI standard velocity to about 40 yards.
-
On 11/14/2021 at 8:33 AM, Frederick said:
Thanks Neil , after googling for hours I was beginning to lose the plot 😀
Its a Bergara B14 HMR , 26 in barrel in 6.5cm , 1-8 twist . The bullet is indeed Hornady ELD match 123g , 6.5cm . It would seem I have to purchase Hornady loading data for one bullet 🤔
Have Lapua and Starline brass .
I've got the 11th Edition Hornady reloading book, and it's mostly Americocentric powder wise for 120-123 grain bullet weights for the 6.5 Hornady Creedmoor cartridge. There are some Norma offerings, but none from Vihtavuori, or Reload Swiss (see later comment).
For 123 grain ELD-M at a COAL of 2.710", their charge weight range for Reloder 15 (RL15) is 36.1 to 39.5 grains. For RL17 the range is 40.7 to 44.3 grains.
As you and many others are aware RL17 is essentially the Nitrochemie Wimmis Reload Swiss product RS60, which has simply been rebranded for the US audience. As such you should be able to directly substitute one powder for the other. Though as always, start at the low end of the charge weight scale.
As to Vihtavuori powder offerings, use their 123 grain Scenar data, but start at the low end of the charge weight scale.
If you are uncomfortable using load data not supplied by Hornady, stick with their data.
As to Vihtavuori powders and using their supplied data for the 123 grain Scenars for the 123 grain ELD-M, if you are uncomfortable doing this I guess you'd just have to buy some 123 grain Scenars instead?
-
Hi Frederick,
I think the people here would be most willing to help you, but you might need to specify the cartridge the powders and Hornady 123 grain match projectile will be used with?
I take it that the projectile is more specifically the 123 gr 6.5 mm ELD Match and from the prior charge weight of N150 you have used that the cartridge is the 6.5 Creedmoor.
Neil
-
3 hours ago, baldie said:
I cannot believe grown men who will have owned all sorts of machinery, cannot grasp barrel break in.
I also cannot understand anyone who will willingly spend X amount of pounds on a new gun, be it a factory rifle, or a full blown custom, and not be prepared to spend a morning, running it in properly.
Dont listen to the idle sods who say its a waste of time, because they are talking out of their arse.
I will not guarantee any barrels accuracy, i've fitted, unless the customer follows my break in regime, which is..
5 x single rounds cleaning inbetween
5 x 3 rds, cleaning in-between.
2 x 5rds cleaning in-between.
Factory rifles will need more break in than a custom blank.
Barrels always speed up during the first 200 rounds.
Surely people are not that dense, as to not recognise the increasing speed is because the barrel is running in ? Are people so thick ?
I had a customer who put 200 rounds down an barrel, straight off, with poor results. It took me a day to get it cleaned properly, then it shot amazingly.
Barrels coming back from proof are lathered in copper, and literally glow orange. It takes an afternoon to remove it, and Bartlien blanks are the worst.
Subsequent shots show less copper, then less copper.........c'mon, even an idiot can see what is happening.
Microscopic pores in the bore, is what you are smoothing out, by shoot/clean. Fill them with initial copper without removal, and you will never get the best from it. If the barrel has reamer marks bad enough across the lands, then the reamer needs replacing.
Prove it scientifically and I'll believe you. Until then this is simply hearsay and your particular view on the subject. An experienced view, but just a view nonetheless.
Plus I'm not one of the "idle sods who say its a waste of time, because they are talking out of their arse". I have a pretty good grasp of degree level maths, physics, engineering and chemistry, so please don't be so insulting.
Frankly without actual scientific proof you could be speaking out of your posterior region just as loudly.
-
I frankly think it's mostly a load of old cobblers with high-quality produced barrels, but each to their own. And hey, if you want to put x amount of rounds through the barrel and increase the initial wear on it, that is quite up to you.
Until I see scientifically-collected data showing the difference in accuracy from a collection of the same make and initial quality barrels that are then tested after they have and haven't been broken in, I think most of this barrel break-in stuff is just hearsay and voodoo magic.
I'd also like to see the wear and the heating profile per round or from a series of rounds and it's effect on the accuracy of broken-in and non broken-in barrels.
Tests to collect this data would have to be conducted using a test stand and fired down a temperature controlled tunnel range. The ammo temperature controlled too, with the gun remotely fired. This to minimise human and environmental error factors.
Oh, and correct me if this has been done already!
I do know the US Army (and partners) were doing a lot of fundamental research on small arms recently. With tests on how primers, charge fills, their geometry and many other factors affect accuracy and consistency of small arms. Unfortunately much of this data is classified.
-
No really going to help now, but it might be worth getting Henry Krank's to (back) order you some Starline 32 Winchester Special cases.
Even though Henry Krank's doesn't list them, they should be able to order them with their next Starline order if you ask them nicely. They did the same for me with a load of 327 Federal Magnum and 32 H&R Magnum cases.
Starline 32 Winchester Special are on backorder on the company's website at the moment (link). As such, and in the mean time, maybe just neck up a small batch of 30-30 Winchester Centerfire (WCF) cases as you previously mentioned. It will be a shame the head stamps don't match, but 30-30 WCF cases are far easier to find and at least you'll have some cases to use.
.22 Grendel
in Varmint Rifles & Heavy Plinkers
Posted
Hmm, if you mean me by they the rather abusive term 'Keyboard Warrior', which I take it you do by the earlier "(This is turning into stalking directory)" comment, that's not a very nice thing to say. I am not a 'Keyboard Warrior' and I think the term you mean is 'Keyboard Jockey', which I'm not either. Whatever your ended meaning both are rude as I am just someone passing on information gleaned over almost a lifetime of being a shooter and who has been a worker in the defence or related industries for all of their working life? I know a lot about the subject, I write about it (small arms, ballistics, weapons technology, etc.) and related subjects every working day and often non-working days. I'm sorry if that may offend your sensibilities, but that's how it is. How about trying to be a little more non-abusive, non-critical and opinionated.
As the the 6 mm ARC, it's essentially a 6 mm PPC with the shoulder blow forwards about 35 thousands of an inch to get a little more powder capacity. It seems a pokey round when loaded to bolt action pressure levels (60 kPSI), but its not too common and as such may be hard to get now and into the future. The 6 mm PPC family would provide very similar, but slightly lesser ballistics.
My 'advice' to the original thread poster would be unless you want to fiddle around making cases, which I don't really like doing myself actually, just get something widely commercially available that fits the ballistics you require. If you want something more exotic, be aware of the caveats previously mentioned.