No.5 47 C

[muffett.2008]

........and that's the reason I prefer 2206H or 2206 when available, it gives a bigger boot up the butt and obturates even the hardest boattails to give a good seal, pump them quick and forget about throat erosion, if it's that bad nothing will fix it.

[Bindi2]

........and that's the reason I prefer 2206H or 2206 when available, it gives a bigger boot up the butt and obturates even the hardest boattails to give a good seal, pump them quick and forget about throat erosion, if it's that bad nothing will fix it.

2206H pressure peaks at a lower velocity than 2208 on the graph. The boot i was referring to was velocity similar to Mk8 at lower pressure.

[CINDERS]

I use a DP-3 to throw .2 grains under then tip it into a lee balance scale set at the final load charge weight and trickle the last .2gns in I have a restrictor on the throwing tube of the DP-3 as 08 is allot coarser and the restrictor stops the over throwing heaps for Win powders I can set it spot on with only about 4% of the weights being over and having to be readjusted 8208 is just as good at metering use that in my wifes full bore and F class.

[Bindi2]

I use a DP-3 to throw .2 grains under then tip it into a lee balance scale set at the final load charge weight and trickle the last .2gns in I have a restrictor on the throwing tube of the DP-3 as 08 is allot coarser and the restrictor stops the over throwing heaps for Win powders I can set it spot on with only about 4% of the weights being over and having to be readjusted 8208 is just as good at metering use that in my wifes full bore and F class.

I am using a Redding micro adjustable thrower and Redding beam. My FO & FC loads are single digit variance. I only use 2208 now days for all medium sized cases.

[conec]

The number quoted by Ian for Fazakerley production of 169,807 is only up to rifle s/n S8823 & for BSA up to s/n BJ1337 there were tens of thousends of No5s not included in these totals given, in fact virtually all of 1946 & all of 1947 production No5s are not included in those totals, a fact i have tried to point out a few times for it to be completely ignored.

I think the fact that Skennerton's numbers are not precise is a given, but I only posted the figures to point out that the Fazakerley numbers are more then double those from BSA Maltby.