zeke asked some questions and again this is really what this report is all about. Stirring thought not dissent!
I can only answer for my firearms.

quote:

Just wondering how many of those reporting easy extraction have had the chambers polished?

I know for a fact that mine have not been polished as I am the original owner of the 686 used in the test. It was cleaned prior to the test. I shoot mostly 38s through it so there is usually a carbon ring in the cylinder. I do my dead level best to get it out and I make sure it is out before shooting any 357s through it.

quote:

how does the ease of extraction relate to determining a 38 special pressure level safe to use in a M15?

This is the question that needs asked from a Smith smith. (pun intended!) What are the metallurgy differences between a M15 an M19? Are they the same? Imagine for a minute that they are. End of discussion, right? Imagine they aren't! Now that would or could be catastrophic! If the "weaker" cylinder expands with the firing of the round and "shrinks" back to it's previous size that would cause the extraction problem. I can't for the life of me imagine that if the "weaker" cylinder doesn't "flex" some that a brass case could be driven into it where it couldn't be extracted. I could be wrong. That's ok, I've been wrong before and will be again. Just read the previous posts!

quote:

Federal pistol primers will flatten out well before CCIs. Rem and Win are about in between. So which primer is useful for determining safe pressure or overloads?

I too have the same opinion about Federal primers. In a firearm that has had a trigger job they are almost mandatory for that very reason. A primer is only one small indicator of pressure for those of us that don't have strain guages or CUP test equipment. I've read, I believe in the Lyman manual, that cases with double the recommended pressure showed little or now signs of overpressure in the primer.

quote:

the reasoning

I would rather think in the other logic path. Not that the #9 didn't disown the load but that at one time the load in the #8 was ok.
Then the question becomes what changed?

No videos this time but I did have another range session with "THE LOAD".

I think it was Bill that asked or stated what it did with Winchester or CCI primers. I only have Winchester but with .5 grains less than originally tested the Winchester only exhibited a minor amount of cratering. Not on every round either. That was shot out of the newly acquired M28 Highway Patrolman. Very accurate but more recoil than 6.7grains of Unique in 357 magnum cases. Now remember folks second shots have to hit the target too!
I did something to test my theory with the cylinders of K38 versus magnums so I shot 6 rounds through my daughter's M14-2 Target. Recoil was noticeable buy not heavy and the cases extracted without much effort. I had to work the extractor rod but they fell right out.

I noticed no difference in cleanliness between some Unique loads and the heavy SR4756 ones.
What I think I will test next is a light SR4756 load that simulates the light Unique loads. I will also test them against my other powders in the 790-830fps range. That is what I shoot in competition.

Any other questions or comments or suggestions or discussions without name calling would be welcomed!

quote:

why the powers-that-be decreed that a K- or J-38 should be used with a max pressure of 20k psi/cup/whatevers.

Why did Smith start putting locks on their guns?

I think it is the same reason that in factory ammo the 45 Colt is loaded down so much. Fear!

Not everyone has firearms as nice as ours my friend!

Subject of another thread, probably, but I've often wondered if there really is any difference in cylinder strength. My 15-3 snubbie doesn't even notice max +P loads. Just plinking. I believe it could digest them until the cockroaches inherit Dillon (if they haven't already). My gut feeling is there's no material difference in the cylinders, except length.

The guns I have shot THE LOAD in have not had their chambers polished.

I do not know that the Model 15 would be the ideal revolver for shooting THE LOAD. Maybe it shouldn't be shot in any revolver. That is for the individual to decide.

I will note that Speer used a model 14 Smith to develop the data for 38 spl in Speer #8. That revolver must have fired many rounds of high velocity loads because there are several loads in the 38 spl section that are not in the wimpy class.

But even then it will be up to the individual what credibility they will give to the Data in Speer #8.

quote:

I will note that Speer used a model 14 Smith to develop the data for 38 spl in Speer #8. That revolver must have fired many rounds of high velocity loads because there are several loads in the 38 spl section that are not in the wimpy class.

Good point!

As an aside, I like the shorthand of referring to this as "THE LOAD." It's very dramatic, as THE LOAD warrants.

Hello - wasn't the burning rate of SR4756 increased after Speer Nr 8 was published?

I would be less shocked to learn that Vice President Cheney was actually a woman in drag. If that were true, then plaintiffs lawyers would have a field day with IMR/DuPont.

Powder burn rates are as consistent as the atomic clock - if, say, Bullseye were to change its burn rate and someone were to damage himself or a gun by using old published data, then he would have a wonderful case against Alliant. To ensure consistency, powder companies maintain great stocks of old powders under expensive controlled conditions and test their batches against these to ensure performance.

It seems a little strange that somone is always suggesting that this or that powder has always had the burning rate changed to make it faster burning. No one seems to think that any of the powders have had their burning rate slowed. The powder companies are not going to change burning speed in the very direction that would cause trouble for their customers and bring on endless lawsuits for the maker of the powder.

quote:

plaintiffs lawyers would have a field day with IMR/DuPont.

Hmm. Do you suppose that is why DuPont does not make gunpowder any more?

No, or we'd all know about it.

As many of you know, I tried some EPP (Enriched Plutonium Power) a few weeks ago with no luck. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with my extra tail and a missing part of my brain. Well, this past weekend I decided to try out some EUP(enriched uranium powder)in my 38spl called "The Other Load". I found it in JC's Third Edition of Hazardous Handloads with Nuclear Components. I had all kinds of problems with the load. First, my gun (M64) started to glow. Soon, I too started to glow in the middle of the day. My groups couldn't be determined since "The Other Load" left huge holes in the target and berm. Have any of you reloading geniuses tried this before? I guess I'm done with this stuff. The constant harrasment 'bout "The Other Load" not being safe and the bickering amongst us just isn't worth the extra body parts or lack of. I'm going back to good 'ole reliable TNT. It's much safer. Later.

The folks at the home were wondering how all those holes in the walls got there...

quote:

Originally posted by Erich:
I would be less shocked to learn that Vice President Cheney was actually a woman in drag. If that were true, then plaintiffs lawyers would have a field day with IMR/DuPont.

Powder burn rates are as consistent as the atomic clock - if, say, Bullseye were to change its burn rate and someone were to damage himself or a gun by using old published data, then he would have a wonderful case against Alliant. To ensure consistency, powder companies maintain great stocks of old powders under expensive controlled conditions and test their batches against these to ensure performance.

As most of you know,there has been a steady rumor(reinforced by a magazine article by Brian Pearce)that 2400 powder has increased it's burning rate speed in recent years.

I've always been suspicious of the rumor for the very same reasons given by Erich.