The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: billt on July 26, 2017, 12:06:17 PM
-
As a longtime shooter and reloader, I've been getting more suspicious over SAAMI's pressure "standards" for a long time now. Along with all of this "+P" and "+P+" ratings you see everywhere. The fact is ammunition is getting weaker across the board, and has been for years. I have long suspected that SAAMI pressure "standards" have been lowered..... A LOT. So I decided to prove it to myself, and did some research.
The "warning" on this box of current production Gold Dots states, they are.... "22% Higher Than SAAMI Standards"..... OK, Which standards? Established when? This is an ever changing saga.
I dragged out some of my old Speer manuals, and found out SAAMI and the industry introduced "+P" ammo ratings as of 1975. At that time .38 Special standard pressure was 18,900 CUP. "+P" was 22,400 CUP. As of 1998 it was reduced to 17,000 PSI and 20,000 PSI. As of today, (some 19 years later), it is 17,000 PSI & 18,500 PSI. This is continually evolving in a lower direction.
So if you do the math, "+P" for .38 Special was 22,400 in 1975 when SAAMI first introduced the standard. Today "+P" is now 18,500. That is a whopping 3,900 PSI, or over 17% LOWER. Yeah, I get it that CUP doesn't correlate exactly into PSI. But you see where all of this is going. Down... WAY DOWN. I'm betting if you do a similar cross comparison with 9 MM, you'll most likely come up with similar percentage differences.
This isn't unique to just .38 Special. So..... "22% over SAAMI Spec.", today really isn't. Especially if you subtract the 17% they've lowered their "standard" since they created it back in 1975. And the real kicker is, the current SAAMI "+P" rating for .38 Special, is actually 400 PSI LOWER, than the .38 Special standard rating was in 1975. That's insane. What's changed to cause this besides an off the rails legal system?
What the hell good is an industry "standard", if they're going to keep changing it? This is ridiculous. It's gotten to the point that "+P" along with all of this "+P+" nonsense is becoming somewhat of a joke. These "standards" hardly remain "standard" for very long. And when they change, they go lower... NEVER higher. Last I checked, my guns haven't weakened with age. Only SAAMI's "standards". And it seems as the legal community strengthens, SAAMI further weakens. This all has nothing to do with chamber pressure. Instead it's all being regulated by legal pressure. And again, the last time I checked, lawyers didn't know jack shit about maximum chamber pressures in firearms. Just how to sue the manufacturers who make them.
So the bottom line is when you see these big red "warning" labels plastered all over most of this high performance ammunition that's for sale out there, take all of it with a grain of salt. Because most all of it is weaker than the non "+P" stuff they were selling just 30 years ago. OK, rant off.
(http://i.imgur.com/46xLADJ.jpg)
-
Are CUP and PSI numbers equivalent?
-
Are CUP and PSI numbers equivalent?
Not exactly, but they're close. If you're more comfortable with PSI, (and most people are), They've used it since 1998. And you can see SAAMI "standards" still show how it's been dropping off. They gotten away from Copper Crusher readings, (C.U.P.), since they have come out with electronic tranducers, because they're much more accurate.
-
Apply that same thinking to health care, whether Dem or Republican .
How many Md's in congress ?
-
I think since CUP and PSI aren't the same and the actual readings they're getting now are more accurate they've changed some of the standards to reflect the up to date information.
-
CUP and or PSI aside. My gripe is... What is the purpose of changing an established standard? If you do the research, and the research is correct, why change the established standard you have created, that everyone has gone by for years?
The National Bureau Of Standards wouldn't come out and take 4 ounces out of a gallon. There is no reason to. It would just screw everything up. Just like SAAMI has with all of this pressure manipulation. And they haven't done it once, but several times over the last 42 years since they created the original standard.
-
I think since CUP and PSI aren't the same and the actual readings they're getting now are more accurate they've changed some of the standards to reflect the up to date information.
They are no doubt more accurate since they've gone to electronic transducers. But there is no doubt they are lower.
-
As a better example. I still have some old late 60's Remington .44 Magnum, 240 Gr. Lead Gas Check ammo in the dark green and white box, with the red lettering. That stuff was loaded so hot it made what Cor-Bon loads today look like it was loaded by a Buddhist Monk. There were no warnings on it anywhere. Weatherby Magnum factory ammo even more so. .340 Weatherby Magnum factory ammo from the early 70's, was loaded hotter than .338-378 Weatherby ammo is today. Factory .338-378 Weatherby ammo today is a $170.00 a box total joke. The only way you can achieve what that cartridge is capable of today, is by handloading it with super slow burning military surplus powders.
If anyone needs further proof of how weak ammunition has gotten over the years, compare a handloading manual published in the 60's, to one published today. Compare bullet and charge weights to velocities, and everything published today is so diluted it's pathetic. This isn't because the guns have gotten weaker. But rather because the legal system in this country has gone completely off the rails. We didn't live in a sue crazy society then, like we do now. And no one was blowing up their guns either. If anything, today's guns are stronger than ever before. Modern metallurgy, along with steel manufacturing is producing far higher tensile strength materials, than were being produced back 50 years ago. There is no physical reason for this ammunition to have become weaker.
We just weren't plagued with an over abundance of sue crazy, ambulance chasing lawyers to deal with. And juries who sympathize with them. This is why we have warnings plastered over every box of ammo being produced. Again, it's not because of chamber pressure.... But rather legal pressure.
-
With accurate measurements they decided the pressure was too high in some calibers. It may have just been that they thought the pressure was excessive and had nothing to do with lawyers, etc. We're not likely to ever find out for sure.
-
The National Bureau Of Standards wouldn't come out and take 4 ounces out of a gallon.
Who says they won't ?
Do I have to point out that the original standard, the English gallon contains 5 American quarts ?
-
The National Bureau Of Standards wouldn't come out and take 4 ounces out of a gallon. inal standard.
Yeah, but the National Coffee Association said a Cup is 6oz. Why can't other groups, just make things up as they go.
I blame soccer. Who plays a game with a count-UP clock? Then when the clock gets to some magical number, 45?, supposedly the "regulation" time, the refs just assign some extra, arbitrary minutes of play.
-
Having handloaded .38spl for over 45 years, I've had the same feeling but never tried to quantify it.
Of course now I load for a specific velocity. For competition I load to make Power Factor and everything else, I want the highest velocity possible with the lowest pressure. (Hence H110 for .357 and .44)
-
Something else occurred to me. The metallurgy of new guns is getting better but that also means the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good. Considering the fact that the .38 Special was invented in the 19th century the SAAMI pressure may have been lowered over the next 100 and some odd years so 21st century ammo won't blow up a 19th century revolver. I know for example that .45 Colt ammo is loaded to way less pressure than a Contender or Super Blackhawk could handle and some .45-70 loads are loaded to less than half of it's potential to keep people from blowing up antiques.
P.S. My coffee maker must make 5 ounce cups. I use slightly less than one liter of water to make 6 "cups" or half a pot of coffee and most coffee cups I've seen are about 11 ounces. ???
-
With accurate measurements they decided the pressure was too high in some calibers. It may have just been that they thought the pressure was excessive and had nothing to do with lawyers, etc. We're not likely to ever find out for sure.
Something else occurred to me. The metallurgy of new guns is getting better but that also means the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good. Considering the fact that the .38 Special was invented in the 19th century the SAAMI pressure may have been lowered over the next 100 and some odd years so 21st century ammo won't blow up a 19th century revolver.
I'm not buying any of that. If the metallurgy was bad, and or the pressures too high, you would have had guns coming apart left and right. That has never been the case. The .44 Magnum had more research and testing done on it before it's introduction in 1956, than any other caliber up until it was introduced. The 9 MM has been in continuous production since 1902, and has ALWAYS been loaded as a high pressure round.... Especially in Europe by NATO countries to this very day. The .357 Magnum has been here since the 30's. And the Smith & Wesson Registered Magnums that chambered it back then were some of the finest crafted revolvers ever manufactured in that companies history.
In the late 60's and early 70's the .454 Casull round came roaring on the scene, along with it's 65,000 PSI chamber pressures. The highest ever attained to this day by ANY revolver. Even the .500 S&W Magnum doesn't match it. All of the guns that were built around these cartridges at the time handled the pressures just fine. There was nothing wrong with the metallurgy, or materials they were made from. Yes, both Elmer Keith and Dick Casull blew up a few guns during their development of both rounds. But once the research was complete, and both the .44 Magnum and .454 Casull went into full factory production, there were zero issues with factory guns blowing up, when loaded with factory produced ammunition.
I agree the steel being produced today is the best it's ever been in regards to tensile strengths. Then why the reduction in pressures? It doesn't make sense. If we go with your argument that the guns "back in the day" were made from inferior material, and today they're produced with much better steel. Then the pressures should be HIGHER, not LOWER. Remember, they never had issues with these Magnum revolvers, or Weatherby rifles blowing up, with the hot loaded factory ammunition that they were being fed back then. Shooting loose over time, perhaps. Blowing up, no.
Sure, you have some of the older guns that were built around black powder cartridges at the time. Like the Trapdoor Springfield's in .45-70, and the like. Along with .45 Colt revolvers that had what amounted to "black powder frames". But those guns are few and far between. Most are collector items rarely found on the range. Today they're as scarce as finding an old, "Balloon Head" .45 Colt case. Same with guns that had varying barrel groove diameters like the 8 MM Mauser. Which still accounts for factories both here and Europe downloading that cartridge. (Serbian produced PPU in 8 MM Mauser is horribly anemic because of this).
Most all of the high performance Magnum rifle and pistol rounds have been loaded down by the ammunition factories, over what they were producing 40 years ago. None of those loads back then were "unsafe". Nor were the guns. Hell, I'm still loading to manuals from the 70's. I value the information in those manuals far more, compared to the diluted crap that's being published today. Most every loading manual out there printed in the 60's and 70's show loads across the board substantially higher in both pressure and velocity over what's being published today. I can understand the loading manuals have legal liability issues. But that doesn't excuse SAAMI for continually lowering the standards since they first established them.
And yet another thing that doesn't support all of this downloading and reduced pressure "standards". Are all of the excellent slower burning powders available today, that didn't exist back then. This has allowed even better performance, with less pressure. No matter, they still keep lowering the pressure standards on these cartridges that have been around forever. Even with better powder, better steel, better guns and all.
You either have a standard, or you don't. You don't keep changing it in order to suit whatever legal climate just happens to exist at the time. And that's exactly what they're doing. You never heard about guns blowing up back then, anymore than you do today. And since they started this whole silly "+P" and "+P+" nonsense, it has just managed to confuse an already screwed up "standard" even more.
-
my guess is that a lot of the pressure down sizing came about when the .40SW became a law enforcement standard a decade ago...the 9mm actions (that locked into the ejection port) that were upgraded to .40SW just unlocked too early, and subjected the ordnance brass to unacceptable pressures...cartridge case wall thickness was not under the control of the pistol manufacturers, the principal litigant in a kaboom case.....in USPSA during the 175 power factor era, a lot of 1911 based .40s (as well as .38super) shooters suffered face tattoos from case ruptures using the then available propellants... VihtaVuory cured a lot of problems
-
You are all over thinking it, two words-SAFETY NAZIS.
-
You are all over thinking it, two words-SAFETY NAZIS.
That pretty well sums it up. It still pisses me off, however.
-
You are all over thinking it, two words-SAFETY NAZIS.
Indeed, suh.
Job security for lawyers and their label-makers.
We live in a nation that has to put directions on shampoo.
-
I'm not buying any of that. If the metallurgy was bad, and or the pressures too high, you would have had guns coming apart left and right. That has never been the case. The .44 Magnum had more research and testing done on it before it's introduction in 1956, than any other caliber up until it was introduced. The 9 MM has been in continuous production since 1902, and has ALWAYS been loaded as a high pressure round.... Especially in Europe by NATO countries to this very day. The .357 Magnum has been here since the 30's. And the Smith & Wesson Registered Magnums that chambered it back then were some of the finest crafted revolvers ever manufactured in that companies history.
In the late 60's and early 70's the .454 Casull round came roaring on the scene, along with it's 65,000 PSI chamber pressures. The highest ever attained to this day by ANY revolver. Even the .500 S&W Magnum doesn't match it. All of the guns that were built around these cartridges at the time handled the pressures just fine. There was nothing wrong with the metallurgy, or materials they were made from. Yes, both Elmer Keith and Dick Casull blew up a few guns during their development of both rounds. But once the research was complete, and both the .44 Magnum and .454 Casull went into full factory production, there were zero issues with factory guns blowing up, when loaded with factory produced ammunition.
I agree the steel being produced today is the best it's ever been in regards to tensile strengths. Then why the reduction in pressures? It doesn't make sense. If we go with your argument that the guns "back in the day" were made from inferior material, and today they're produced with much better steel. Then the pressures should be HIGHER, not LOWER. Remember, they never had issues with these Magnum revolvers, or Weatherby rifles blowing up, with the hot loaded factory ammunition that they were being fed back then. Shooting loose over time, perhaps. Blowing up, no.
Sure, you have some of the older guns that were built around black powder cartridges at the time. Like the Trapdoor Springfield's in .45-70, and the like. Along with .45 Colt revolvers that had what amounted to "black powder frames". But those guns are few and far between. Most are collector items rarely found on the range. Today they're as scarce as finding an old, "Balloon Head" .45 Colt case. Same with guns that had varying barrel groove diameters like the 8 MM Mauser. Which still accounts for factories both here and Europe downloading that cartridge. (Serbian produced PPU in 8 MM Mauser is horribly anemic because of this).
Most all of the high performance Magnum rifle and pistol rounds have been loaded down by the ammunition factories, over what they were producing 40 years ago. None of those loads back then were "unsafe". Nor were the guns. Hell, I'm still loading to manuals from the 70's. I value the information in those manuals far more, compared to the diluted crap that's being published today. Most every loading manual out there printed in the 60's and 70's show loads across the board substantially higher in both pressure and velocity over what's being published today. I can understand the loading manuals have legal liability issues. But that doesn't excuse SAAMI for continually lowering the standards since they first established them.
And yet another thing that doesn't support all of this downloading and reduced pressure "standards". Are all of the excellent slower burning powders available today, that didn't exist back then. This has allowed even better performance, with less pressure. No matter, they still keep lowering the pressure standards on these cartridges that have been around forever. Even with better powder, better steel, better guns and all.
You either have a standard, or you don't. You don't keep changing it in order to suit whatever legal climate just happens to exist at the time. And that's exactly what they're doing. You never heard about guns blowing up back then, anymore than you do today. And since they started this whole silly "+P" and "+P+" nonsense, it has just managed to confuse an already screwed up "standard" even more.
In a previous post, reply #7, you said, " If anything, today's guns are stronger than ever before. Modern metallurgy, along with steel manufacturing is producing far higher tensile strength materials, than were being produced back 50 years ago." but disagreed with me when I said, ". . . the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good." Make up your mind. Which is it?
-
In a previous post, reply #7, you said, " If anything, today's guns are stronger than ever before. Modern metallurgy, along with steel manufacturing is producing far higher tensile strength materials, than were being produced back 50 years ago." but disagreed with me when I said, ". . . the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good." Make up your mind. Which is it?
I said the material today is better. No question about it. However that doesn't mean what was used in the past was inferior.
-
I said the material today is better. No question about it. However that doesn't mean what was used in the past was inferior.
If one is better how can the other one NOT be inferior?
-
If one is better how can the other one NOT be inferior?
Now you're being silly. Look at all of the millions of older guns out there, that have been shot with nothing but hot ammo. Because that is all that was available for decades. Before SAAMI started watering down all of the standards. If these guns were all made from "inferior" materials, they all would have been blown up or damaged by now. That's hardly the case is it? Why would you describe something that works as designed for decades as, "Inferior"?
-
1970's Smith & Wesson Model 29
1.) Beautiful hand polished Royal Blue finish.
2.) Crisp, smooth, hand fitted lock work and trigger assembly.
3.) Counterbored chambers that completely encase the cartridge heads. With no cartridge rims, or gap showing on the rear of the cylinder.
4.) Each one packaged in a beautifully crafted, blue velvet lined wooden case, complete with solid brass hinges and closing latches, with places for cleaning rod, bore brush, and mop. And a proper fitting screwdriver for the sights, with a nice machined Aluminum handle.
2017 Smith & Wesson Model 29
None of the above. And packed in a blow molded plastic box with a built in lock and key.
Now which, by your definition would you call, "inferior"?
-
Now you're being silly. Look at all of the millions of older guns out there, that have been shot with nothing but hot ammo. Because that is all that was available for decades. Before SAAMI started watering down all of the standards. If these guns were all made from "inferior" materials, they all would have been blown up or damaged by now. That's hardly the case is it? Why would you describe something that works as designed for decades as, "Inferior"?
I'm not being silly. Compare ANY 2 objects. If one object is superior to the other, then the other one has to be inferior to it. It doesn't get any more simple than that. They aren't equal if one is superior to the other, and one can't be both superior and inferior to the other in any particular way. They could each be superior to each other in different ways but when you name one particular category neither can be both superior and inferior in that way.
-
1970's Smith & Wesson Model 29
1.) Beautiful hand polished Royal Blue finish.
2.) Crisp, smooth, hand fitted lock work and trigger assembly.
3.) Counterbored chambers that completely encase the cartridge heads. With no cartridge rims, or gap showing on the rear of the cylinder.
4.) Each one packaged in a beautifully crafted, blue velvet lined wooden case, complete with solid brass hinges and closing latches, with places for cleaning rod, bore brush, and mop. And a proper fitting screwdriver for the sights, with a nice machined Aluminum handle.
2017 Smith & Wesson Model 29
None of the above. And packed in a blow molded plastic box with a built in lock and key.
Now which, by your definition would you call, "inferior"?
None of that has anything to do with which one has better metallurgy.
-
None of that has anything to do with which one has better metallurgy.
What's the difference in metallurgy between a 70's S&W and today's? Be precise.
-
Glad I've got my boots on for this pissin' contest. ::)
Angels fear to tread and all that. So why am I going to post a comment?
Metallurgy may be better or worse for a given spec metal. If the same ingredients are used I'm going to bet you'll get the same metal...be it now or 100 years ago. The precision of measurement probably isn't any better now than 100 years ago and the foundry procedures are much the same.
There may be better castings in the investment process because of the materials available today...so long as everything else is held to standard. So now we are talking about the "illusion" of quality. Castings reduce machining processes (as opposed to working from say bar stock). Is a casting better or worse than machining from bar stock of the same metal? I'd say it is the same unless the bar stock was hammered...and who knows if it is/was?
The quality control procedures may be better now but there is not guarantee they are properly applied today or yesterday. What is better is the ability to detect imperfections in metal that are not on the surface. I don't know if that is done on a casting or bar stock...and I doubt they do that on bar stock if it's going to be hammered (improved).
Precise temperature control is better now with the advance in electronics and sensors. This may gain significant quality. If you have a casting a big gain in quality is possible.
Casting small parts I don't like. I think machined is better. What are the parts in today's guns??? But then again, some castings are better than machined parts (can't remember where I saw that on a particular gun but the article was pretty thorough and had references).
Is Tupperware better than steel? Maybe. Depends on the application. Better how? In actual use is it better or better to admire? I'd rather carry and use my lighter Tupperware than steel guns but I love my CZ 75's...go figure. I want to carry those CZ's and sometimes I do...but more like a "barbeque gun" to show and talk about rather than everyday carry. Exception is my PO-1 CZ which I like when shooting a competition over 150 rounds because it's weight absorbs recoil and helps me towards the end of round keep the shots where they need to go and not left and down.
I think there is some art vs. purpose considerations. Hand fitted and counterboring is great but comes at a price. If the castings or machine parts are good enough to escape the hand fitting is hand fitting really better than just slapping the parts together....you gotta wonder if a design or parts at the end of the manufacturing process require hand fitting is the overall quality really there if hand fitting is required?
Is the metallurgy better today? If you are talking about the actual foundry process maybe not...on selection of a particular metallurgy it can go either way (save a buck or improve the performance).
Shoot, I can't remember where I was wandering with this and I'm too lazy to read what I typed already to know which way to go. So why do I carry the "low quality" Ruger SR-9 that has never failed to fire in several thousand rounds with the excellent trigger (thanks to $20 Ghost connector upgrade) over the "obviously" higher quality and much higher priced CZ's and 1911's (and the 1911's have FTF quite a few times on a lower round count despite some hand fitting by a gunsmith).
Going to SAAMI...it was likely based on observed performance using the tools available at the time. I am betting the SAAMI specs were influenced the same way engineering specs were influenced in the past. The lack of having sensitive and repeatable tools caused the spec to have a much larger safety factor in the past than it may have today.
-
I agree that the processes are much more improved than the actual material. Just as heat treating has, along with surface hardening and corrosion treatments such as Tennifer and the like. Even if the material itself has seen minor improvement. We really don't know without examining the technical specifications. Ruger has proven this by how far they have taken vacuum investment casting. Their Model 77, Mini 14, and #1 falling block actions are some of the strongest on the market. Yet they are all investment cast.
As far as SAAMI, I think fear of the legal community, along with their actions have influenced chamber pressures today, far more than improved test equipment has. As I said, if the pressures were too high, we would have had evidence of that by disintegrating weapons. Regardless of the equipment they used to test it. That never happened. And because we don't know the exact chemical compositions of the materials used now, as opposed to then, we can only speculate on the material being "better".
-
I read material specs and test reports every day of my workweek.
Today's alloy metals have very precise percentages of base chemical contents, tensile strength, hardness, etc. and our ability to measure those percentages is lightyears ahead of 19th and 20th century metallurgy. That said, you may infer that today's guns quality is superior to 100 years ago.
Now, continue to piss away! :)
-
While mechanical machining methods have improved. Such as the repetitive accuracy of today's modern CNC Machining Centers, and newer coated high speed tooling. The hands on skill level has sadly deteriorated. It's why many of the finer guns of the 70's can no longer be manufactured. Let alone made at a profit. Guns like the Colt Python, which featured hand stoned and fitted lock work, could not be made today in mass quantity.
Back then the people who assembled these guns were on an almost gunsmith level of talent. Today that is not the case. If you look at Remington and Marlin, along with others, the quality level has gone way down. For example, I was all set to purchase a Remington 572 Speedmaster Pump .22...... Until I read on several sites that the new models are plagued with feeding and operational issues.
This should not be the case with any new firearm...... Let alone a $700.00+ premium .22 rifle. On most every thread on these guns people all say, "Look for a good used one. Don't buy new!" That's just crazy... But it's a sad fact. So instead I'm looking at a Browning BL-22 Grade II. It's in the same price range, but they run flawlessly. So it really doesn't matter what the level of metallurgy is that the new Remington 572 contains..... If the damn thing won't even run right after you take it out of the box. Again, which one is "inferior"? When it comes to gun making, there's a lot more in play that matters far more, than what's in the bar of material they start out with.
-
Yes, I misspoke; today's MATERIALS are superior but I agree on the quality of some firearms. I own a '69 Wingmaster that is hands down better than anything produced today!
-
What's the difference in metallurgy between a 70's S&W and today's? Be precise.
You tell me. You're the one who started talking about metallurgy.
-
You tell me. You're the one who started talking about metallurgy.
Then how do you know it's "better"? I said there is no doubt better metal available. That we know with certainty. But how do you know it's being used in today's revolvers? And if it is, how much "stronger" has it made them? And assuming it has, why has SAAMI still continued to reduce pressures across the board? Remember, you said :
Something else occurred to me. The metallurgy of new guns is getting better but that also means the metallurgy of old guns wasn't so good.
So I'm assuming you know for a fact they are using "better metal" in the manufacturing process of newer guns. So if you know this, how much stronger are they, than these older guns which you claim to be, "inferior"?.... Remember, I've maintained all along, that I believe this has nothing to do with metal and chamber pressures. And everything to do with lawyers and legal pressure.
-
Then how do you know it's "better"? I said there is no doubt better metal available. That we know with certainty. But how do you know it's being used in today's revolvers? And if it is, how much "stronger" has it made them? And assuming it has, why has SAAMI still continued to reduce pressures across the board? Remember, you said :
So I'm assuming you know for a fact they are using "better metal" in the manufacturing process of newer guns. So if you know this, how much stronger are they, than these older guns which you claim to be, "inferior"?.... Remember, I've maintained all along, that I believe this has nothing to do with metal and chamber pressures. And everything to do with lawyers and legal pressure.
I don't know anything for a fact except that I agreed with you when you said, "If anything, today's guns are stronger than ever before. Modern metallurgy, along with steel manufacturing is producing far higher tensile strength materials, than were being produced back 50 years ago." If you know that for a fact, why are you asking me? And if you didn't know what you were talking about then, and have changed your mind now, don't blame me for what's going on between your ears. I can't fix whatever's wrong with your thought processes. Better metal is available now. It would be quite odd if no one is using it.
-
Frank is just a dick that has to be in a beef with some one.
He should get married.
-
Frank is just a dick that has to be in a beef with some one.
He should get married.
He reminds me of F.Q.
-
At least FQ was interesting, Frank doesn't even have that going for him .
-
Frank is just a dick that has to be in a beef with some one.
He should get married.
You're just jealous that when Bill started arguing with himself about metallurgy (modern metallurgy is/is not better) you weren't invited to play along. ;) Just because my opinion occasionally differs from you guys doesn't make me a dick. It just means that I can form my own opinion. When else in several years have I ever had to be in a beef with someone? BTW, I was married and she was almost as much a bitch as you are. Is it any wonder I dumped her?
-
In 1978 I bought several(!!) boxes of Browning 300 WinMag ammunition. This ammo was 150 gr with a 3400 ft/sec muzzle velocity. I actually still have some. The standards and hence velocities have obviously gone down over time.
-
In 1978 I bought several(!!) boxes of Browning 300 WinMag ammunition. This ammo was 150 gr with a 3400 ft/sec muzzle velocity. I actually still have some. The standards and hence velocities have obviously gone down over time.
If you really want to see a difference, try some of the old Weatherby brand .300 Weatherby Magnum ammunition, (brown, red, and yellow box with the wildcat on it), compared to what Weatherby sells today. Or some of the late 60's early 70's Remington green and red box with white lettering 240 Gr. .44 Magnum Lead Gas Check ammo. NOTHING in .44 Magnum was EVER loaded hotter! Including most anything from Super-Vel.
Hot As A Blowtorch
(https://i.imgur.com/qhu3YmD.jpg?2)
Cold As Ice
(https://i.imgur.com/OzKYlYm.jpg?2)
(https://i.imgur.com/McpYL4p.jpg?1)
Nothing Hotter In .44 Magnum
-
Bill, those Remingtons were some knuckle-busters in a Super Blackhawk with the square-back trigger guard.
-
They (manufacturers) have put much more merit in the recommendations of their legal departments, and why not, with the suit happy society that we've become.
My concern would be modern commercially manufactured loads that exceeded SAAMI pressures.
I haven't fired a store-bought bullet in over 20 yrs. (besides 22LR).
I shoot contenders and I shoot a lot of wildcats. I have to load my own for about 60% of my barrels and I want to know how much stress my frame goes through when I shoot all my rounds.
-
That's my concern too. Getting commercial rounds that are way too hot.
It's a shame I still don't have a place or time to reload. I think you gotta have a good time loading wildcat rounds.
-
..... My concern would be modern commercially manufactured loads that exceeded SAAMI pressures.
That's my concern too. Getting commercial rounds that are way too hot.
I can all but guarantee you that is NEVER going to happen. Not with the way today's commercial ammunition is being watered down across the board. As I mentioned in previous posts, "+P" rated ammo today has a lower pressure curve than standard loads in the same caliber did back in the 60's.
Yes, there is always the chance that a manufacturing mistake could happen, in regard to accidently producing over pressure loads. But even then, if it does there is usually an immediate recall issued, giving caliber, lot numbers, dates of production, etc.
And today with the Internet and social media being what they are, the word gets out quickly if a loading error is made. Usually before any damage is done. Years back they published such recalls in gun rags like the American Rifleman, Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, etc. So the stuff could be out there for months before the public knew about it.
But as far as factory ammunition being produced today, there is nothing that is being loaded to the red line anymore. Even the stuff coming from outfits like Garrett and Cor-Bon is weak in comparison to what once was out there from the major manufacturers like Winchester, Federal, Weatherby, and Remington.
For example, I just saw a while back that Super Vel is back producing ammunition again. This after decades of absence. I still have some older Super Vel ammo that was produced by Lee Juras back in the early 70's. As soon as I can get some of this new stuff, I'm going to run a comparison evaluation between the 2. Caliber by caliber.
I can all but guarantee you the new stuff is going to shoot like target loads, when compared to what was produced back in the day. I'll report on it as soon as I get some of it. From what I've seen thus far, the stuff is overpriced as hell. So we'll see.
-
I bought hot commercial rounds once maybe twice. I never check the internet for recalls so the cases had to tell me there was a problem...
But I think you are right. The loads have gotten cooler over time.