Printable View
I tried something called "the load" by Ed Harris (13.0 gr Red Dot, standard boolit, sized to throat diameter +2/1000") in my M1917. A 165 gr. FP cast boolit didn't stabilize, with about 1 in 5 shots tumbling at 50 yards. Speed was likely about 1500 fps. Curious if others have tried The Load in their M1917.
I have tried something similar in my M1917, of which more later. But first of all a few thoughts.
This kind of load is sometimes termed a "cat's sneeze" load.
Thinking about sneezing, have you ever had the irrepressible need to sneeze in a sensitive situation, like in a concert, and then held your nose to stop the "muzzle blast"? Remember the feeling that you eardrums were about to explode, because the pressure had not been rapidly released in an uninhibited sneeze? Well, if your rifle had feelings and could talk it would probably report a similar experience with the load you describe.
Putting it rather unscientifically, there are two major phases in getting a bullet launched from a rifle barrel.
1) The "whack" phase, when the bullet is forcibly engraved in the rifling.
2) The "shove" phase, when the bullet is accelerated down the barrel to the muzzle.
The trouble with a "cat's sneeze" load is that all the energy may be used up in the whack, with very little (or none) left for the shove. In which case, you end with a plugged barrel.
And from your report I suspect that you may indeed be close to that. The tumbling indicates that the bullet is staggering out of the barrel, and a chronograph measurement might show a startlingly low muzzle velocity.
I shoot calibers from .22 short up to .577 Snider, so I never imagined there was a universal load. Why should there be? The 30-06 case is larger than many others, and the M1917 barrel is longer than many others.
If your barrel is good, then the bore is tight to the muzzle. So after the engraving, the powder gases have to do some work in forcing the bullet down the bore to the muzzle, not just accelerate the mass of the bullet. But the very fast pistol powder that you used is all whack and no shove.
And why on earth make the bullet 2 thou above bore diameter? This just increases the mechanical deformation work to be performed by the powder and raises the peak pressure as a result.
Sorry Ed Harris, there is not a universal load for all calibers. Maybe it will enable the bullet to crawl out of the muzzle in most cases, but the above post shows that the result can be poor to hazardous.
I strongly suggest that you avoid using the load you describe, and either go back to a conventional 30-06 loading, or try something along the following lines...
...Sorry, got an appointment. Part 2 later.
Patrick's quite right. There's no universal load. Stay away from hearsay loads and use full house loads that come from reliable sources such as powder manufacturers that publish books on the subject. If you don't actually want to buy a book, or it's too much trouble, then refer to the on line info such as this site... http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp
In other words, if you can`t handle the big gun punch, then go to the 22 rimfires.
There is not much sneezy with 13 grains of Red Dot. That is a lot of fast powder and Ed chose it because it is bulky and it would be hard to double charge a case (plus he had something like a lifetime supply from some shotgun buddies who had passed away). The cast bullet shooters have found that their best results are with bullets sized to fit the throat or leade. This could be a couple of 1,000's over groove diameter, and soft lead is not bothered much by a bit of a squeeze. However none of the records for cast bullet matches are held by "The Load", Accurate 5744 is the powder of choice with Alliant 2400 and a couple of others also in the win column. You are right that it is quite a smack, but I doubt anything would stick if cast lead, jacketed maybe if not at 13 grains, but not lead.
The Cast Bullet Association
That said I have tried numerous cast loads in my 1918 Eddystone with the original 5-groove barrel. These have ranged from a pinch of Bullseye, through 16+/- grains of 2400 to full 2,100 fps load of IMR 4350. I have also played with cast bullet diameters of 308-316 and weights from 170 to 205 grains and several different lubes. None were spectacular and several leaded badly even with gas checks. It will put jacketed bullets into 2.5 MOA on command especially the Hornaday 0.3105 "Enfield" bullet. I have also found the sight adjustments you need for the light loads lacking on this rifle. My M1903A3 2-groove will put almost anything sized at 0.314 of cast lead into one ragged hole at 25 yards and keeps them fairly close out to 200 or so if pushed at 1500-1600 fps.
The biggest problem is with a safe full of kids, it is hard to devote much time to one brat at the exclusion of the others. I am sure that somewhere there is a cast load that my M1917 would shoot decently, but I don't have the time to work it out. Ed Harris also used jacketed bullets with his "The Load" especially lighter ones and had good success. I like a challenge, but "Easy" is also nice when it happens.
Dave
Thanks for the tips. I agree that going lighter seems more likely to work: I had good results a few years ago using 125 grain FMJ over H4895 at 75% of max. load. I haven't seen H4895 in ages, but I'll probably go back to that when I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Well, it took a bit longer than I anticipated to find the test target.
Just to show that a lighter load can work with the right components "here's one I shot earlier". Several years back, in fact. Before reading the details I recorded, please note that something like this will ONLY work if you FOLLOW THE BOOK! No funny stuff with jacketed bullets and different powders please!
The load is taken from the Haendler & Natermann reloading manual for their copper-plated bullets, which also have a proprietary plastic coating to reduce friction and prevent leading. IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ANY OTHER TYPE OF BULLET OR POWDER.
Attachment 43919
As you can see, pretty good results. Obvious question: why didn't I follow this path? The answer lies in the trajectory.
The 5-shot group in the center required the M1917 sight to be set at 600 yards! The two patched-over sighter shot-holes in the 7 at 6 o'clock were made with the sight one notch lower, and the sighter at 12 o'clock in the 6 was with the sight set one notch higher. At the 100 yard setting the shots would not even have been on the paper!
So although a load like this might be usable with an Enfield No.4, thanks to the vertical screw adjustment, it is pretty useless in practice on an M1917 because of the lack of fine adjustment. And small variations in powder charge, seating depth, light conditions, temperature etc etc are going to result in vertical shifts that cannot be corrected by the crude steps of the M1917 backsight leaf.
If you want to try something like this, follow the published data. Get the H&N data and their bullets. And the same powder. Do not try "making it up as you go along" with different bullets and powder. You have been warned!
Genau! What is so nice, with the reduced load, is that the rear sight becomes usable, even at 100m. I believe that you must find a load that reaches the bullseye at the distance you shoot. Greek HXP surplus M2 shoots high in my M1907 below 300m, even at the lowest sight-ladder setting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticker
Since the M1917 ladder goes down to 200 yards, it sounds as if you could use a taller sight blade. And when looking for one, don't forget - you can use Enfield blades!
That taller front sight is the way to go, but the huge aperture at the rear and the usual windage issues with slower bullets is another source of frustration. I have found that using 25 grains less in bullet weight and 3-5 grains more powder (Speer TNT; 4895 burning rate powder, 2,900 fps) I have less recoil and am fairly close to the POI of M2 Ball ammo. Regardless, it is still not a 22LR or even a 223 in recoil or muzzle blast but it is a noticeable reduction.
Dave
No problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wineman
Piece of black sleeving off a single-core cable, push-fit in the aperture, slide onto thick needle for alignment while gluing, a drop of impact adhesive (Pattex, Thixofix). Sorted.
Next question.
I used a similar load: Hodgdon's website's "reduced load" for H4895 and 125gr Speer TNT (less powder, rather than more powder like you used). I did find that the 125 gr bullets were less tolerant of rough handling, unless you wanted a really short OAL and seated them deeper. But they shot well. Between the 125 gr bullet, and the reduced load, I'd say that recoil was about 50% of milsurp M2 ball ammo. With the reduced recoil, I could shoot using olympic standing position, supporting the rifle on a fist, which I use for 223 and 22LR. When I shoot milsurp M2 ball ammo in offhand position, I extend two fingers on the support hand (like the "Hook 'em Horns" hand-sign) to keep the rifle on the support hand, which is less comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wineman
Patrick,
Thanks for the tip. That has been on a to do list for a while now, but I never seem to get round tuit. I noticed that Tech-Sights sells Urathane inserts for the AR15 sight that reduce the aperture. Your method has got to be much less expensive and easier for sure but a factory solution may have some merit if they fit. http://www.tech-sights.com/inserts.htm
Dave
I have had good luck w/11.1 gr Unique, WW large rifle rifle primers and a 311041 plain base cast w/ straight linotype that weighed about 155 gr. 311 diameter. Normal 31101 GC w/Water cooled wheel weights weighs about 174 gr.
The load was in a custom 1903A3 w/glass bedded Boyds C stock, 20" barrel, Redfield rear and a Thompkins globe front site.
seabreeze
---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 PM ----------
I have had good luck w/11.1 gr Unique, WW large rifle rifle primers and a 311041 plain base cast w/ straight linotype that weighed about 155 gr. 311 diameter. Normal 311041 GC w/Water cooled wheel weights weighs about 174 gr.
The load was in a custom 1903A3 w/glass bedded Boyds C stock, 20" barrel, Redfield rear and a Thompkins globe front site.
seabreeze