.320 REVOLVING RIFLE “RANGE TEST”

[BMur]

In the clear

The concept is to “match” not “modify” the original black powder cartridge.

I’m not drilling out an original case. I’m attempting to MATCH an original black powder case flash hole using a modern smokeless case 150 years later.

Smokeless cases do not match original black powder cases.That’s the point. If the case doesn’t match the results will also not match. Resulting in poor performance at the range.

Just because we use a smokeless case to shoot black powder loads and it goes bang doesn’t mean we did it right.

Anyone who has actually loaded cases for target shooting understands the concept of “MATCH LOADING”.

It’s not dangerous, it’s not modifying, it’s perfecting and matching an original factory target load. That in its pure sense is what I am attempting to accomplish.


Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


"It’s not dangerous, it’s not modifying, it’s perfecting and matching an original factory target load. That in its pure sense is what I am attempting to accomplish."


I don't know if that was directed towards my last post but I was
referring to using a cartridge case with an enlarged flash hole with
SMOKELESS Powder is Dangerous. It will be fine with black powder
(so long as the hole isn't made too large).


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Cases ordered

The addition Smokeless 32/20 cases are ordered. Likely be a while before they get here. I’m going to attend to other projects. I’ll check back when I have the cases ready for the test.

Murph

 

[Jim Watson]

All I have ever loaded with black powder were rifle rounds, .38-55 and .40-65. I used whatever flash hole Winchester and Starline sent me.

Early days of modern BPCR, there was a lot of shooting done with Magnum primers after people read about the old "long burn" primers that broke up and ignited heavily compressed powder charges. Before I dropped out, the pendulum had swung the other way, standard rifle, even pistol primers, and trying to see an advantage with under-primer wads for mild ignition.

I didn't get into all that experimentation, I used Swiss powder in rather light loads, it shot the most accurately with only light compression (after drop tube.)

Early mercuric primers would leave metallic mercury residue that would amalgamate the cartridge brass. I think the only reason cases could be reloaded was that the black powder swept most of the mercury out.
Potassium chlorate souped up the mix, but left potassium chloride, so now primers were corrosive to both brass and steel.

Trivia: Before lead styphnate was settled on as a noncorrosive priming compound, there was some "noncorrosive" ammo loaded with mercuric primers. That ruined the brass but spared the barrel. The ammo company wanted you to buy new instead of reloading, anyhow.

 

[Muley Gil]

The concept is to “match” not “modify” the original black powder cartridge.

I’m not drilling out an original case. I’m attempting to MATCH an original black powder case flash hole using a modern smokeless case 150 years later.

Smokeless cases do not match original black powder cases.That’s the point. If the case doesn’t match the results will also not match. Resulting in poor performance at the range.

Just because we use a smokeless case to shoot black powder loads and it goes bang doesn’t mean we did it right.

Anyone who has actually loaded cases for target shooting understands the concept of “MATCH LOADING”.

It’s not dangerous, it’s not modifying, it’s perfecting and matching an original factory target load. That in its pure sense is what I am attempting to accomplish.


Murph

One variable that you will have trouble duplicating is the powder. Modern black powder isn't the same as the powders available in the 1800s.

I would like to see your results using standard, modern flash hole cases and the results using enlarged flash holes.

 

[BMur]

Test variables

I can do that. I’ll load several without adjusting the flash hole size and several adjusted to .090.

We can rip this test to shreds if you want to fellas. Pretty easy to sit in the bleachers, drink beer and throw peanuts.

Let’s be honest here.

I’m using the wrong non balloon head smokeless case, a non original primer, the wrong bullet, the wrong powder, ( we have no clue what brand powder they did use),the wrong powder load, the wrong caliber modified case, likely the wrong seating depth, and I would bet the original powder charge was a duplex load.

So what’s the point in trying this test out anyway?

Even if I had found original cases they’d be over 100 years old so that could be contested also.

I’m just trying to have some fun and wanted to share the event with collectors. I have zero interest in being a tomato target.


Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


I agree there are too many variable involved and you have control
over only a few of them. I assumed you were attempting to duplicate
the performance of the original round (to the best you can). As a
side goal, one would like to minimize the fouling created using
black powder (i.e. better ignition and complete burning of the
charge).

As to a duplex load, I would have reservations (depending on
your definition of a "duplex" load). I know many PBCR people
will add up to 10% of a smokeless charge at the base (head)
to increase the efficiency of the burn (i.e. less fouling) but this
is in a large rifle cartridge with a very large internal volume.

If your idea of a "duplex" load is to put a finer grain black powder
at the base and then fill the rest with a courser powder, I don't
see that as objectionable.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Duplex loads

From what I have studied with early black powder cartridges, Black powder duplex loads for larger volume cases that amount to a 5%+\- primer load of FFFFG at the base of the case at the primer location and the main charge of FFFG or FFG above it was commonly practiced.

This includes some pistol/ derringer loads as well.
Early Ideal bench loaders were equipped with a duplex feature so it was a common practice during the Black powder Era. It continued into the smokeless era but please, let’s not go there. That’s way off subject.

I am not going there with this load/test either.
I am trying to get close to the original black powder load.
However, more importantly, my main goal here is to achieve a “matching” burn for each case. That’s why the flash hole size subject got involved.

When you focus on improved velocity you miss the boat and the point. I want consistency in velocity as close as possible. Not improved velocity. I want every bullet to travel at the same speed.

The target is the evidence. Bullet placement proves your load. It also proves each round has a matching overall burn.

I Honestly believe that differences in flash holes found on early black powder cases is a focus on a complete black powder burn. That’s what they were looking for.

Irregardless of primer type. The evidence is clearly seen in my early cases. It was obviously dependent upon powder total volume load/ caliber /and size of FF? Being used.
It’s a guess from our perspective because we don’t have enough information.

From my minds eye view I am seeing an inconsistent burn from too small a flash hole and a consistent burn from the correct size flash hole. Which translates to a matching bullet speed. Only two ways to prove it. A chronograph and at the target. I’d set up my chronograph but either will work.

I will post my final cartridge specs after the shells arrive. I want to use the same shells from Midway for all the test rounds since it’s a bag of 100 shells that are claimed to be new.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Shells

Well,
I’m pleasantly amazed. The shells arrived today. 100 count exactly. The flash holes are within .001 of each other between .082-.083. The cases are Starline and brand new.

So next week I’ll have time to get them together. I have to anneal them and open them up at the mouth to.323.

I’ll post progress next week.

Murph

 

[Kinman]

So far so good...I found Starline brass on the brittle side and have lost a few in my use of them to make .218 Bee cases, which is based off 25-20, hence 32-20 by default. Thorough annealing is important before resizing, as I always found with 32-20 and to a lesser degee .22 Hornet the case mouth is very soft and avoiding a ham handed approach is important to case survival, take your time and use a soft glove technique...you know what I am talking about. With making .218 Bee cases I lost a good deal of length in the resizing process, making nearly 30% under the factory specified length for .218 Bee. I thought that after firing they would settle in, but that case and my chamber did not agree, I had rejects at the loading table and refused to force them with a hammer.... although in all truthfulness I will admit to having tapped a few into the chamber with a length of dowel rod on the edge of the case to no ill effect. Once fired I did not get an appreciable "growth" in case length, it may just be one of those ******* children.
I am currently playing around with a .270 Ren Thompson center barrel, that cartridge is made by taking a .22 Hornet and blowing it out to .270 in order to accept 100-105gr. 270 jacket bullets. It was all the rage in 100 yd silhouette for a short time before the .300 whisper, etc all came about. There again tender case mouths and good dies make all the difference in success or thrown out cases.

 

[BMur]

Case modified

Thanks Kinman,
I agree with your process and procedures.

I’ve actually already tried this alteration on about 40 cases for a 32-44 Target. It’s the same process and tools( mouth expander) just the case required a little trimming down. These will be full length so hopefully I have the same results with the starline cases.

The expansion is right at maximum going up from .312- .323. Plus the load will be maximum so I have no idea if the case mouths will handle it. I would never try this with smokeless. Guaranteed to split the cases.

You can see from an old photo of my previous test the mouths are very thin but the bullets seated tightly and that test went over very well. Much lighter load though.

Murph

 

[Kinman]

Looks good to me, I make up the difference between low loads in my large guns with vegetable wads, often adding a couple so that the bullet sets down on the wad and when chambered comes right up against the lands. Seems to provide the best possible accuracy I can achieve with the 38/55 as well as the 45/90 which I reduce to 80gr. for best effect. The 45/70 can't do what the 45/90 will, its suprising what a 10-20 grns of powder will do. The 90 has achieved sub minute of angle groups in the ten ring, on a whim I was challenged and pulled it off.
This target was shot under ideal conditions at 200yds, I walked the shots in and finally had it in the X ring, shot five with a buddy watching, I wiped between all shots I do not use the blow tube like some guys.

 

[BMur]

Bullet selection

Update;
I’ve got time today to complete the cases. I decided to cut the Ideal .323 bullet down to a 3 band conical. See photo

This Drops the original weight down to 95 Grains and allows for a bigger powder charge by weight. Also very closely matches the original RR bullet.

I’m also using the 32-44 Target bullet since the test will be at 50 yards initially this lighter bullet (83 grain) with full black powder load should also perform well.

I should complete the cases today.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Cases

I’m just about finished with loading the cases. Still have some final hurtles to get past.
Modified loading requires that you take solid notes so you avoid errors that are often time consuming. I have 6 of the 24 cases loaded that won’t chamber so I have to carefully mill some off those cases. Totally my fault not following my own notes. It happens when you use non original cases and totally modify them.

I should finish the cases today.

Line up;

The Red colored cases are .083 flash hole with 83 grain RN 32-44 Target bullet backed by 21 grains of FFFG Goex Black. Very slight collet crimp above top band. Powder compressed 5%. Should be a good load.

The White colored cases are ALL MODIFIED TO .090 flash hole. 6 are identical to the Red cases. The other 12 are loaded with the 95 grain Ideal bullet .323 with 16 grains of Goex Black powder with heavily compressed to 10%. I also applied a heavy collet crimp just above the lower band to snug the bullet.

The Collet crimp is mandatory on these modified cases due to case thickness being what it is at the mouth.

The only item left after the 6 case fitting issue is the front sight. The most common sight found on the RR is photo’d and it tends to slip and move or get lost. I have to repair mine to my satisfaction. That won’t take long.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Follow up

Oh,
I forgot to mention that I decided not to use the Starline cases. They are great cases but they don’t appreciate being modified so I used all old smokeless solid head cases for this test.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Cases, test fire.

I finished custom fitting all 24 loaded rounds to the RR chambers.
I also confirmed the action closes and functions normally with a fully loaded cylinder.
Then I test fired the RR using an empty shell primed to confirm it strikes the primer hard and centered enough to discharge normally.
The antique RR passed all my tests and is now ready for the range trial test with one minor exception. I still have to dial in the front sight. I’ll have time this week to finish that repair.

Also cut one of my modified cases longitudinal to prove no flaws exist with the brass shell. It’s thin up front but safe for black powder loads.

I also draped a rag over the cylinder area before I pulled the trigger on the hot primer empty case. You can see the flash signature on the rag so there will definitely be a significant FLASH from a live round so that will be part of the range test. I will not hold any part of my arm next to that area of the cylinder. With a typical rifle grip to the fore stock your arm is about 1 foot away from the cylinder gap. That’s where mine will be draped with a rag to see how much flash impact there is.

I’ll post again when the sights are dialed in.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Globe sight

I can’t repair the original hunting factory front sight without a weld.
I’m not set up for welding right now so I decided to repair one of my antique universal globe sights. NUMBER 12 Stamped on the side. I have no idea who manufactured them but they are very well made. Solid iron with a 3 point screw mounting design.

First photo is a factory Globe front sight for comparison.

I bought a small wooden antique box with 3 of them inside years ago and several copper inserts. Each one supports a different sight design and swap out easily.

Had to repair this one. Still need to replace and likely rethread the top mounting screw. Hopefully this week.

This NUMBER 12 is obviously for a ribbed barrel so I’m thinking it was a generic design for long barrel Topbreak target guns.

I like the design a lot. Replacing and adjusting the copper insert is simple and quick. Turning the copper insert moves the sight picture as well. Up/down & Left/Right. Fast and easy.

Wish I knew who made them.

Murph

 

[BMur]

Ready

The RR is now ready. Sights are dialed in. Just trying to get a day at the range set up now. BLM ( public land) shooting is out due to fire season or I would have shot it by now.

I should have a range report soon.

Murph