cvatridge design, H4198, and Qucik Load

C

Charles E

curmudgeon
I'm pretty disgusted with the way this thread has gone, for my purposes anyway, So I'm deleting my posts. But since I was the first poster, if I delete this one, the thread goes away. In case anybody wants it, I'll preserve the thread by leaving "something" here.
 
Last edited:
Charles, The 6 BEGGS seems to work with the H4198 range of burn, basically a necked up 220 Russian.

Sine H4895 is slower I would think more room would be in order. There has been a PPC with the shoulder blown forward .050" used, but I don't know what powder was used.
 
Charles,
Some time back, I had a phone conversation with a knowledgeable shooter about 4198 (in the 6PPC, with typical bullet weights), and it was his experience that although it yielded excellent accuracy at moderate temperatures, that when used at matches that had a large temperature swing that ran fully up into the range that would be described as hot, that it was difficult to stay on top of how much to back off the load in order to stay in tune as the day got hotter. Have you ever played around with Xterminator, or any of the Norma powders?
Boyd
 
I have recently shot norma 200 in my 30 br.It appears to be an excellent powder.I have not shot a whole lot of it yet.
I have some 115grn.9 ogive cheeks bullets in transit and will report on how they perform with norma 200.My last firing was with cheeks 118s 7 ogive.I realize this is not 6 ppc shooting but my gut feeling is if it shoots 4198 it will shoot n200.
 
I find this hole subject very interesting as i am one of those that has a love hate relationship with N-133. We have the very best equipment money and technology can buy, but yet we have to use a powder that is constantly needing tuned. ( I also think that there needs to be some research and development devoted to finding better priming methods.) but thats another story, and maybe there just isnt anything better than what we currently have?
At the end of this past shooting season my good friend and myself played a little with X-terminator powder, and the results were somewhat promising. My pard, felt that x-terminator was to slow in terms of velocity, but we didn't chronograph it either. he is a better rifle shooter than myself so i beleive what he says. However, i do intend to continue playing with the x-terminator powder once temps rise a bit. Accuracy was good! As far as 4198 goes. I plan to shoot this powder in my 22ppc .100 short case this spring. I think it will be the go to powder for the .100 short. I may be wrong, but i will try anything to find an escape from the grips of 133. I have a favorite lot of the new 8208 and i just found another 4 pounds, but this wont last forever. I can only hope IMR is working on this for us. I have heard that they are working on this and yet i cant find anything concrete evidence to back what i am hearing up.
I know this does nothing to answer the original question. I dont have the cash flow to invest in new case designs so i have to resort to the only methods i know, and that is trying my best to find an already available powder that will work. There has to be something!! Even though i dont care for n133, i am not ready to part with it either. Lee
 
Charles

You and I must be on the same wavelength as of late.
Since I have the facilities to do it, I have often thought of pushing the shoulder back on a regular 6PPC untill the capacity is in the full density charge range of 4198.
What keeps me from doing this? 4198 has it's own set of problems, mainly due to the manufacturer. Consistant burn rate, from one lot to another, is very inconsistant. We have found in our 30BR's that one Lot # to the next can vary as much as a whole 1.5 grn to achieve the exact same velocity in the same barrel. That is a lot when dealing with small capacity cases such as we use.

Of course, the 6BEGGS is exactly what case capacity we are looking for, I chambered a rail gun barrel up for it a year ago and it shot quite well. However, sonce the laws of physics has not been repealed, it did take a pretty stout load to achieve 6PPC performance in velocity, but perhaps it's upper end window is really in the 3250 range.

The lowered capacity 6PPC, (probably .150 short), would probably be a great option if you could score a good lot of 4198 and aquire enough to last a lifetime.

As a note, that might be why the old originol Lots of "T" worked so well at 3250 to 3300, the burn rate was very uniform. You could simply use the same powder, even the same charge, be willing to find barrels it liked, and shoot on a very consistant basis without worry that the Rifle's agging capability would just go down the toilet with certain weather changes.

In fact, that is what several very well known Shooters did for a long time........jackie
 
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that powder can not be made to shoot the same velocity and bullet exit time over a wide range of temperatures. The unavoidable variability is due to heat transfer to the barrel. The hotter the barrel, the less combustion energy is lost and the faster the bullet is pushed. The best we can hope for is a consistent burning rate at a given temperature, and a consistent change of burning rate with change in temperature.

The faster the powder, the more sensitive it will be to charge weight in the lower capacity cases necessary to achieve 100% loading density and 65 kpsi. But the faster powder also reduces muzzle pressure, and less powder means lower recoil. The differences between 6PPC and 6 Beggs are not large, but still some interesting tradeoffs to think about.

Cheers,
Keith
 
Gene Beggs .0000002 worth

My first inclination was to stay out of this conversation but what the heck. :rolleyes:

There is no need for you to 'reinvent-the-wheel' so to speak when it comes to solving the problems described in this thread. Save yourself the time, money and frustration and come out to Odessa, Texas and get your questions answered in the tunnel.

During the past few years, I have invested a great deal of time and money solving these problems. I have the answers you're looking for.

Gene Beggs
 
jackie schmidt said:
You and I must be on the same wavelength as of late.
Since I have the facilities to do it, I have often thought of pushing the shoulder back on a regular 6PPC untill the capacity is in the full density charge range of 4198.

(GB) Jackie, why go to the trouble when I've already done the work for you and even have custom, off-the-shelf dies for the 6Beggs? The case capacity is perfect, (26 grains H4198 Extreme) and you have already proven the cartridge easily delivers the same velocity and accuracy as the 6PPC. (3400 fps with 68 grain bullets) I think you already have a set of dies. If you are like some and don't like the name Beggs, call it whatever you wish; call it the 6Jackie Sackie or whatever. Dave Kiff at PTG has the reamers in stock with the latest dimensions, which he designates as the 6Beggs MkII. Diameter at the base is .4420 and at the shoulder, .401. It fits perfectly, the Hornady bushing type dies.


What keeps me from doing this? 4198 has it's own set of problems, mainly due to the manufacturer. Consistant burn rate, from one lot to another, is very inconsistant.

(GB) Jackie, I have not found that to be a problem with the H4198 Extreme I have used, and I've tried several different lots.

We have found in our 30BR's that one Lot # to the next can vary as much as a whole 1.5 grn to achieve the exact same velocity in the same barrel. That is a lot when dealing with small capacity cases such as we use.

(GB) Heck, if small variations in burning rate bother you, just buy 48 pounds of the same lot and forget about it. H4198 Extreme is the most underappreciated and versatile powder in the world. JMHO, mind you. :)

Of course, the 6BEGGS is exactly the case capacity we are looking for, I chambered a rail gun barrel up for it a year ago and it shot quite well. However, since the laws of physics have not been repealed, it did take a pretty stout load to achieve 6PPC performance in velocity, but perhaps it's upper end window is really in the 3250 range.

(GB) Jackie, the upper window of the 6Beggs is exactly the same as the 6PPC, (3400 fps and it does this with two grains less powder; the perfect powder being H4198 Extreme. As a further advantage, it is not difficult to get 26 grains of H4198 in the case; you don't have to trickle it in slowly like you do 30+ grains of N133 in the 6PPC.

The lowered capacity 6PPC, (probably .150 short), would probably be a great option if you could score a good lot of 4198 and aquire enough to last a lifetime.

As a note, that might be why the old originol Lots of "T" worked so well at 3250 to 3300, the burn rate was very uniform. You could simply use the same powder, even the same charge, be willing to find barrels it liked, and shoot on a very consistant basis without worry that the Rifle's agging capability would just go down the toilet with certain weather changes.

In fact, that is what several very well known Shooters did for a long time........jackie
Click to expand...


Jackie, my comments appear in italics preceded by (GB)

Gene Beggs
 
If you talk to someone who has shot a lot of T in widely ranging conditions, and who is also familiar with 133 in the same conditions, I think that you will find they are strongly of the opinion that T is much less sensitive to temperature and humidity changes, and that the only reason that they would quit T is that their supply had run out. This is why there was some considerable effort to duplicate it recently.

As to the speed of Xterminator...several years ago, I decided to do a little experiment. I wanted to compare the velocities obtained (from my 6PPC) using the same bullet, seating depth, and charge VOLUME of 133, 322, and Exterminator. I had been working with some 62 grain Watson bullets, and figured that their light weight would help avoid any pressure problems at a charge volume of 54 clicks on my Harrell measure. Everything went fine. The numbers were interesting. As a last minute thing, I decided to try one load with X-terminator. Now there wasn't a problem. My Viper's small pin tip was probably partly responsible for this, and the Lapua pocket was usable for another load, BUT, out of a 22" barrel, that Watson chronographed something like 3,6o4, and I decided that that was an indication that I might be flirting with disaster, so I left it at that one shot. I would suggest that for evaluating velocity, shooting over a chronograph, before coming to a conclusion, is well advised. If I ever decide to change to one of my variable scopes, adjust my HVR trigger to minimum field weight, and start shooting 55 grain V-maxes at ground squirrels, I have a pretty good idea of what powder I would try. Either that, or some of that 130 that is in my gun closet.
 
Charles, my comments appear in bold preceeded by, (GB)

Charles E said:
Well, this is turning into an interesting thread, but I obviously failed to communicate -- except to Jackie -- the original goal. That goal is, design a case around a powder. Not pick a case where a powder seems to work.

(GB) Charles, your communication was perfect. Jackie Schmidt was not the only one who heard you loud and clear.


Now it could turn out that the 6mm Beggs is ideal with 4198.

(GB) I assure you, the 6Beggs IS ideal with Hodgdon's H4198 Extreme.


I doubt that was Gene's design goal. He took the .220 Russian, and expanded it to 6mm with no other changes.

(GB) Charles, you are right about one thing; the 6Beggs was not my original goal; it was simply the 220Beggs. I DID change one thing; the radius at the junction of the neck and shoulder. I sharpened this radius to .060 from .125 of the original 220 Russian, which eliminated the excessive stretching it was famous for. The 6Beggs? Well,, it just fell into my lap as an afterthought and lo and behold, has proven to be the best of both worlds; it delivers 3400 fps muzzle velocity with the same 68 grain bullets as the 6PPC and does so with two grains less powder. (26 grains of H4198 as opposed to 30 grains of N133 in the 6PPC) An added bonus of the 6Beggs is significantly reduced muzzle blast and recoil. Accuracy potential of the 6Beggs vs., 6PPC is exactly the same; limited only by quality of bullets and barrels.


I assume that was the design goal. Then he went hunting for a powder that would work.

(GB) Yes, I guess you could say, I did it backwards; I had the cartridge in hand and then went searching for the ideal powder, but, who cares how it was done? The fact still remains; the 6Beggs and Hodgdon's H4198 Extreme are a perfect combination. (I'd rather be lucky than smart). :)


I'd allow that a 1.5 grain variation across lots of 4198 could be a problem when you're trying for 100% loading density.

(GB) I'm sorry, but I just have not seen such extreme variations in burning rate with different lots of H4198 Ext. My experience has been quite the opposite and I chronograph every shot that goes down the tunnel.



Hope this answers your question.


Gene Beggs
Click to expand...
 
Gene
I have always been told that 4198 is super sensitive to temperature changes. I haven't found this to be true in the 30BR, but i was warned about this after telling a fellow shooter that i was using it in my 22ppc .100 short. I haven't shot enough of it yet to have an opinion. Basically i was told that 4198 can get away from you in a hurry? Thanks Lee
 
Over the years

there have been a lot of great Score Shooters show up at multi-day matches pre-loaded with H-4198 and win big matches without regard to temperature or anything else. When one considers how many shooters use H-4198 in their 30 BR's it's amazing how may barrels and bullets like it. Having said that, I use to think N-130 worked a bit better. I quit using it because it was Unobtanium for one year and it got spendy.

I did hear a friend say that he had to adjust his load of H-4198 from one lot to another to keep the speed the same.

These are all 30 BR's but I don't see how that should matter that much. Gene has worked out a system with his chamberings and tuner so that one can stay on tune quite easily, from what I have seen.

I have shot Reloader-7 for almost two years with good success. I can't say that I have felt that it went out of tune during any of that time. I have shot several lots interchangability without noticing any change in my tune.
 
Last edited:
I skipped over #9 to the end.
Perhaps it's the application of N-133. And Not the powder.
Same with XBR.
Ref. Jack Neary vids.
It worked for me. Got my first trophy this year.
 
skeetlee said:
Gene
I have always been told that 4198 is super sensitive to temperature changes. I haven't found this to be true in the 30BR, but i was warned about this after telling a fellow shooter that i was using it in my 22ppc .100 short. I haven't shot enough of it yet to have an opinion. Basically i was told that 4198 can get away from you in a hurry? Thanks Lee
Click to expand...



Yeah, I've heard that nonsense too. :rolleyes:

Wonder why I've had such good results with it if it's THAT temperature sensitive?:eek:

When someone offers that theory, ask him if he's talking about the old IMR 4198 or the new Hodgdon H4198 Extreme. Oh? He didn't know there were two different 4198's?
 
Gene, the 4198 Extreme is exactly the powder that we are finding velocity differences in from one lot to another.
Mind you, it doesn't make any difference. Once you find the sweet spot with either, a 30BR will shoot. You simply have to go through a tuning proccess again when you change lots.
My latest 6PPC effort seems to be shooting pretty well, it is a drop port Diamondback with a plain ole 13.5 twist Krieger. I have a decent lot of Barts Bullets, and my tried and true set-up, using 03-133, is doing quite well in testing.
I am beginning to think that I have simply gone through some not so good barrels, and mediocre bullets, producing less than stellar performance.........jackie
 
seems to me all of us are trying to get perfection,probably will never happen.
The ppc Case shortend .085 and add a 35 deg shoulder works for me with reloader-7 or h-4198
 
Gene
Out of curiosity do you keep your tunnel at a constant temperature or does the temp fluctuate with the outside air temps? The reason i ask is simply because i want to get to the bottom of this 4198 debate regarding how temp sensitive this powder really is. I have had a couple fellas that i respect very highly tell me that 4198 can be difficult to stay on top of, and yet you say this isnt true. I don't for a minute believe that you would give false information, nor do i believe these other fellas would either. I dont have enough experience for my self to know. I have shot several pounds of this powder in my 30BR barrels and i haven't found there to be any issues, but perhaps the 22 and 6ppc will be different? I dont know. I dont really want to spend a lot of time and barrel life working with a powder thats going to turn around and bite me in the end. These ppc barrels only have a few hundred rounds of competitive life and i dont for a minute want to waste them using the wrong powder. Maybe there can be something said for how 4198 shoots in a consistent atmosphere compared to a spring/fall day in St Louis were the temps may fluctuate 25 degrees? Just curious. I have been thinking about this all day, so i thought i would ask. thank you sir! Lee
 
I've not read every post in this thread but did read several. Anyhow...

Charles,

If one were to "design" anything around a particular component, would it not follow that you would want to be able to say you'd quantified and qualified everything you possibly could about the component in question? In other words, I'd want to be able to make a lot of statements about ALL powders, both the one I chose and the many I did not, before I said "this one is the one I will work with".

Is there anything about a particular powder that makes it a desirable or undesirable choice? With so many variables, how do we place weight on the ones that matter the most? And, the very basis for this discussion is for making a case with "better" load density, when you have myriads of examples of cases with very poor load density performing at top competitive level.

I can think of so many issues to discuss on this that its beyond the scope of brc. For every single one that comes to mind, I can think of a shooter I know who has done exactly 180 degrees opposite from conventional thinking and shot remarkable.

I think the direction of this conversation is sorta like, "what is the best air pressure for tires in Nascar?". I run 45psi in my car, let's try that! :D

Btw, in my experience, I'd say that cases >95% full are disadvantaged. (depends on the type of powder obviously, and the barrel).
 
Charles E said:
Phil, I'm not sure if you are objecting to my use of the term "desgin" or to a procedure. I am sure many people have gotten many things to work. In fact, I'm one of them. As much as I dislike N-133, I use it. Same with Reloader 22 and 25.

But over 5 decades of shooting have left me with some favorite powders: 4198, 4895, and 4350. To which you will say. "Fool, they've changed over the past 50 years." And so they have.

But they are single-base powders, and widely available. However much the coatings have changed, for some reason, they don't seem to have affected the powders much. I still use 4198, now in a .30 BR. And I still use 4350, now in a just-a-bit-smaller-than 243 6mm.

If you prefer "fabricate" a case, I don't care. I'll even allow "cobble-up." But I'd like to cobble one up with a goal in mind, and that goal is 100% loading density at 65,000 psi. Remember, I'm probably not going to load to 65,000psi. Maybe that's where your >95% comes in. But I've had a few cases where a powder worked real good, except you couldn't get quite enough in it. Don't want to go there again.
Click to expand...

Just curious Charles, why be concerned about 100% density. I have shot BR rifles for a long time without having 100% and never seemed to notice any reduction in accuracy. I have always found that in the 30 cal rifles I have tuned and shot the placement of the bullet in the case mattered a lot more than where the powder was located.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top