Jump to content

cookoff013

Members
  • Content Count

    7,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About cookoff013

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,916 profile views
  1. you may be able to use a 2.75" crimp load with a 2.5" roll turn shell. but please investigate further.
  2. this data set is perfect start to making that decoy shell thats magic. iksopener gets all the credit for this. its his thread. i did something similar but my load was toast.. now why is this important? and now? first its economical. at 24 grams of steel shot is about 24kg of steel shot per 1000 shells. rock these with a #4 steel and be done with it. the powder charges are easily respectably efficient enough. normal steel shells launch with 30+ grains of powder, these have been tuned with less. weighing of steel shot and powder isnt nessasary, just getting the right amount in the hull but not never exceeding what is published.in the past i have used the 114 mec lead bar for dropping 25grams of steel. easily done. infact i banged out all of my nontoxic stuff out of a press, and hoppers / bar / bushing. thats more than 100 an hour of premium shells. you will not be reloading 32g steel and expecting it cheap. powder is too expensive, use too much, have a go. please do. have a go and see get stuff and reload, if you dont like it, sell the reloader and components. i buy shells, i`m not married to the reloader, its cost me hundreds of pounds in loads that i have tested. i never chased the £. with this reload, it is cheap. or as cheap as factory.
  3. if you want cheap pigeon loads, try making your own 24 /25 gram #4 steel. there are a few wads out there. the powders for this should be vectan AS, csb5, reddot etc. tis is easily done. i dont thin there is 2.5" steel shot specs. i definitely know there isnt 2.5" HP cartridges. steel shot is an alternative to lead, 99% of the time. for you older guns, get some reloading gear, reload lead substitutes, softies - niceshot, itx, bismuth. etc. i`m not happy with this. but i`m smart enough to adapt.
  4. yeah, really good. i am from the west midlands, and a pint of banks bitter from a fresh cask, cannot be beaten !
  5. Anyone tried it? Ill need to make a sourdough starter. But i cant wait.
  6. I heard yesterday. Great books, taught me to read. Always wanted to eat boar like obelix
  7. Yeah. Reloading is expensive. The bottom line is, i can virtually load any metal as long as its below 36g in that volume. I actually loaded these through a mec sizemaster with a 114 bar and weight confirmation by weighing. I could press out a few hundred wildfowl loads in under an hour. Switching out the shot bottle with different shot only. I would really like to have a few goes with the powershot at 36grams. And a 20gauge powdercard underneath. If i were to extrapolate these results. I could get any lead load, replace the lead in the shot bottle, with bismuth, and load nontox. Bismuth is 0.88x density. So if i have a fibre 42g lead load, and replace that volume with bismuth, it would be a 37g bismuth fibre load. I would then get it tested. But it should be good. But id need to know if that powder is efficient. Id just research and get other data supporting powder/wad/ maximum payload. That test and the energy output test, really was ingenious. With that data and efficiencies i can guess how much powder to add or take away to have a load calculated fps. Pressures would still need to be tested, but if im caution in what im doing. Its good. I already have a 42g lead fibre load to abuse, to add 37grams of bismuth bb.
  8. I`ve been proof testing stuff again, this time i wanted to something amazing. First i wanted to do an experiment with notoxic shot, or should i say varied density shot. Its the experiments i`ve been going on about for about a year. Its taken me a year to get stuff up and ready, because this is actually a slight continuation of my lead vs steel ammunition analysis. I also had a load tested before to essentially tune up a load and have a play with some nontoxic shot. The experiment First i did a ton of research, i needed a hull, primer, wad and powder to allow the load to be safe when the hardest of shot is used to the softest shot. The first the load i had originally tuned was a 2.75", and when i said "tuned", i mean i`ve run a bunch of test shells to get the right powder charge for my series of tests. the powder charge i hope to keep the same throughout the shot density assay, to make sense of some numbers later on. The 3" hull is to be used and the industry standard cx2000 primer. i went with the 3" hull because of a few compounding things... the large powder charge, and more so the tall nontoxic wad i have personally chosen. I choose the clcb / gualandi tubo24 wad, it is a tall solid robust wad. I selected this because of one of the shot materials i`ll be using is tungsten or hevishot, i wanted the wad to be very protective.The BP24/28 wad does offer protection. With the BP24/28wad may mean 70mm hulls could be used, but not at that powder volume. I made a decision 3", cx2000, Gualandi CLCB / Tubo24 wad. The main components are done. the next phase was the powder. In my initial tests i had steel vs lead, and i had 36g lead vs 25g steel shot. The results were as expected, but not too dissimilar, about 100fps and 150bar difference between the two. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, but it was to pave the way for this tests. I tuned up a load with steel shot and lead, my criteria for the tune up was to get the pressure high for the 25g steel, and then switch out to 35g lead again. But with greater numbers. The number i evidently ended up with was (26) grains of vectan A1. I selected vectan A1 because it is reported to have a really good operating range, and a solid performer. (irony is its one of the slowest powders i`ve used recently, 42g 3" lead subsonics). I know that the powder can seriously handle 36g lead going at very acceptable speeds (not theoretical, actual good speed.) so that was criteria. So... we have an expected donor load with some spaces already filled in, namely lead shot and steel shot. From a technical point of view as the volume of shot is the same, i can measure shot by a mec 114 lead bar. It drops close to 25g steel and 36g lead. It fills up the clcb wad nice with no overfill. The load and assay is all but complete. the next stages were to buy small lots of different nontoxic shot, and switch out the shot metal for the varied nontoxic shot. I want to thank the pigeonwatch forum for supplying me with some of the components. There are 6 shot types. 12-76-1050 bar HP cx2000 26grain vectan A1 Gualandi Tubo24 / CLCB wad 25 gram Steel shot 499 Bar 411 m/s standard 28 gram Pure copper shot 569 Bar 403 m/s standard 29 gram ITX-10 shot 677 Bar 405 m/s HP 32 gram Niceshot shot 688 Bar 387 m/s standard 32 gram Bismuth shot 677 Bar 382 m/s HP 36 gram Lead shot 757 Bar 379 m/s HP fold crimp All these have been run through the CIP system, 5 shot string. The HP stands for high performance second tier pressures, thats below 1050bar, and the s2n variation is below that criteria too. So... those labelled HP passed cip High Performance 1050bar (1050bar MAP) and passed the s2n (variation). The other shells pass the standard presser tier (740bar MAP). The Additional notes are because sample size is so small, only 5 shotstring. The statistics, the s2n is ultra strict, meaning if they pass they are safe. I cant justifying shooting all those nontoxics (well someone else to shoot them). To recap, I put different shot by volume in a nontoxic wad. Fired them off in a pressure barrel. Of all the shells i manufactured, the nontoxic assay proved to me that internal ballistics are quite complicated. infact having lots of data is the key to understanding all parts of ballistics. To calculate the energy i used the ft/lb formula to get the energy levels. (v*v*m/450240), to express this in ftlbs. There were some tests that i have not included in that dataset, because they failed proof. namely HW13, and another. The one statistic i am interested in, is the efficiency of the cartridge, ie powder has energy. 25g Steel 385 grain 1348 fps 1553.8ft/lbs 59.76 ftlb/grain of powder 28g Pure copper 431 grain 1322 fps 1673.0ft/lbs 64.43 ftlb/grain of powder 29g ITX10 447 grain 1328 fps 1750.9ft/lbs 67.34 ftlb/grain of powder 32g Bismuth 493 grain 1253 fps 1719.1ft/lbs 66.11 ftlb/grain of powder 32g Niceshot 493 grain 1269 fps 1763.3ft/lbs 67.81 ftlb/grain of powder 36g lead 555 grain 1243 fps 1904.5ft/lbs 73.25 ftlb/grain of powder Additional / failed cartridges 42g cartridge t 647 grain 1201fps 2072.7ft/lb 79.69 ftlb/grain of powder 32g cartridge s 493 grain 1364fps 2040 ftlb 78.5f tlb/grain of powder While that table is interesting, all it says is that the heavyer payload the more energy shot recieves, the cleaner the load burns. The energy is not infinite, x grains of powder can only produce y amounts of energy, no matter what ! There is never going to be more energy created. Essentially everytime we dose a hull we are adding x amount of energy, or x energetics. It would appear that 26 grains of powder in this application has a maximum output of ~2050 ftlbs. If we study the list alittle it gives away the clues, such as 28 gram to 36gram is where this powder really excells, not suprising so, as thats what the powder is marketed at. The lead (Pb) load seems to be right at its powercurve. It really kicks out that energy. Infact thats really good to see 1243fps at 2.5M is still a fast speed. I think the rules are established and confirmed, lightweight shot charges go fast, but only get given 3/4 the available energy, while heavyweight shot charges go slow with a whole lot more energy. How can x grains of powder give different energies? The mystery of this isnt as simple. The assay was designed to keep the obturation and the volumes the same. They are. The compression section of the wad is the same. The differences could be that the lighter shot (25g steel) gets given enough energy to move initially, and once the crimp goes its transfered enough energy to move the shot and break the crimp. The heavyer payloads need more energy to move the larger shot weight. If i do a back calculation to say all the~2050ftlbs of energy of that 26 grain powder charge is converted we would have a 25gram steel load doing 1600fps ! We should note that the lead 1904ftlbs is not too far away from the most energy produced. That heavy lead shot charge must need a lot more energy to move the shot and break the crimp. Lets talk wads, what does the compression section do? How can we compare the compression sections, knowing different weights of shot causing different ballistics ? Is the wadding ever more crucial to internal ballistics? There are 1000s of wads out there, they must do something different? On paper the lead load just rocks, relative fast speed. But the other nontoxic shot at about 32grams seem to be about what this powder can do. The odd uique thing is the ITX 10 seems to really romp home with nearly the same energy as the heavyer lead load. thats 29 grams vs 36 grams. It seems to suggest ITX10 is punching well above its weight. It also seems that heavyer payloads Nearly use all the energy, but are close too or over the "standard" tier CIP breech pressures. Looking at the data there seems to be a power band around the 32g payload. Its enough shot weight to just work well. Not suprising as its the range its supposed to work very well in. It is very clear that it is right in the middle of the road for this payload. There is a massive energy spike at around 36g of lead shot. Not suprising as its just above the powders intended payload. It appears there is a plateau at some point and any weights above the 32g weight, the energy skyrockets. The 59-64-67-66-67 ftlbs / grain of powder can all be argued as very close together, 73 ftlb per grain is on a different level, thats the lead load, extracting more energy form the powder. A better cleaner shell. The additional shells were over pressure, a heavyweight tungsten load and a 32g steel non compression wad load. They failed the CIP High Performance tier, but the energy data is still very useful in this application. Even at very high pressures the shell energy output is very close to the really good lead shell. Meaning the lead shell is pretty much, very efficient. One experiment that was conducted alongside was on a similar lines to the previous experiment. Infact it was crutial.The comparison between compression wad and a non compression wad. this would be very hard to compare. but not entirely. First everything has to be similar, exept the wad, because the wad will be different, so will the shot. The test has to be done like that. What we have is an array of components. The payload needs to be the same, Different shot types must be used. The test is 32grams of steel / non compression wad vs 32grams Niceshot / Tubo24 wad. The results came back and offer an insight into the internal ballistics. Comparing how that compression section affects that powder charge. The first thing thats noticed is the 32g Niceshot with compression section came in at 688bar. The 32g steel shot non compression section just straight doubled in pressure to 1282bar or 18000psi in old money. There is no compression section for the gas to expand into, so the breech pressures just skyrocketted up. There is no second questioning it, just straight doubled. This says a few things, pressure is created in the chamber, thats a no brainer. The volume that the gas can expand into will affect the breech pressure, thats measured 1" in the chamber. This Steel 32g load was used as a control for the experiment to extract the most energy from the powder. The 42g HW Tungsten load was a heavyweigh version, but it failed on pressures, but gave out the same energies as the 32g steel. Thats cool. The future testing. At the end of all this, we have data and some great shells. The future work i take from these tests and the data are that Faster powders needed to be used for the 25g steel shot load. The 32g loads are fine. The 36g payload / powerband is probably the best thing to exploit, loading up 36g of premium heavyweight tungsten shot, plus packer / wad filler. Duplexing Tungsten and steel shot might be achievable. The 32g loads could tested in the same way, ie more plus packer / wad filler and 32g of heavyweight tungsten shot. -some of you have seen this data before, this is the full written article that i planned to write a couple of years ago. i`m planning on doing some other stuff, maybe the same in 20 gauge, and a fibre wad 12 gauge version, thats lead / Bismuth / Niceshot.
  9. say again where these potatoes are at? asking for a friend
  10. guys, if you are to look at this there are no HP criteria for 67/65 mm hulls. there are very hard limits. the 2.5" has the same pressure limits as 12/70mm standard proofing. just no steel HP criteria. ok, thats the nanny state bit done with, i thought about getting a metal rod and rolling paper around it . aka a single sheet of a certain size of paper. roll it tight to produce a tube. cut or fold one end. and or glue. that would produce a single wad. it will be silly slow manufacturing, then there is the data issue. or lack of. for the 65/67mm shells, i would bite the bullet and use premium nontox, bismuth / niceshot. and only use as and when.
  11. very true. but that can happen with any shotsize. i like 5s and 4s in big sizes. just for slower speeds.
  12. i want to say no. lead is toxic to birds. we `ve been gouged enough on prices of shells. steel shells used to be £88/k they were that unpopular. no company alive today would ever see that again. thats just borderline price war. the big manufacturers have a monopoly on shells. probably thats why the 29gram, 21gram, 31gram loadings come to place because they shouldnt compromise premium loads. this now just gives the industry time to try and rip us off again. while retail is partly some issues. i`d like to see end to shells at £400 / k or more viable alternative with no quibbles. quality loadings for the game industry at reasonable prices. access to powders for a tinker. quality reasurance. new and interesting loadings such as an ounce of 4s / steel. quality subgauge ... steel shot is killing the subgauge.
  13. the guys in the states did this with just fibre wad and steel shot when there was the first restrictions. they did it with guns they didnt mind shredding the barrel. because they can buy spare barrels and spare guns willy-nilly. they just exchanged lead for steel directly. cant say i approve, there are threads in another forum about using reclaimed shot with steel shot contaminating it. and scoring barrels.
  14. The fact you have 70mm chambers still means you have options. That and or roll turning may help.
×
×
  • Create New...