Remington Ultimate

Modern Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Modern Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GM54-120 said:
Convert a RU or UF to the Hankin's primer module system and the problem is basically solved permanently. It uses a .473 case head module or whatever you need. The modules are designed to handle FAR higher pressures than subs will ever make and its LRMP. IIRC he is in the process now of making the conversions for the RU. His plugs also use a tungsten bushing for the flash hole. If the flash hole erodes, just buy a new bushing and install it.

I also agree. It may happen one day if I have additional problems in the future. I thought Jeff sold them in packages of 25?

I decided to provide a little evidence of how and/or what happens with the ignition system and the brass. I'll take all the credit for having to have my breech plug replaced in my UF rifle. My fault, lesson learned and hopefully never repeated. I pulled out some brass cases to show what happens with new, once fired, then when the gas starts to leak (unknown number of re-primes), then when the breech plug totally blew out. This is why the number of times the brass can be re-primed is CRITICAL.

 
I'd probably need to direct my questions to Hankins via email/phone, but for those using the conversion in the field.

Using a black powder substitute would be mandatory due to current legalities, so smokeless would be an absolute no-no. When it comes to igniting a larger than standard volume of black powder subs, we could probably argue till the cows come home reference the realities of truly igniting four 50-grain pellets with a mag large rifle primer, but when it comes to my interest in igniting a large volume of Blackhorn 209, in the Remington Ultimate rifle that I own, has there been any data collected with the Hankin ignition system shooting repeated 160 grain volume loads of Blackhorn? Would the system require the factory 50cal barrel to be changed to a 45, or could it stay 50cal for sub powders?? And for those who are fairly rough on their rifles, say knocking them around a good deal on horseback, backpack hunts, etc., how well does the easy glide fit of the bore sized bullet stay put, without getting knocked off the load?? Someone showed me a video, of I think Hankin, running tests off a bench, repeatedly re-capping the same module, while shooting smokeless. Thought it very impressive and made it appear to be an option worthy of a look.

I purchased my Remington Ultimate based off the feedback of a friend who purchased one to run Blackhorn after he ran into issues using it in his Johnston rifle. He won me over, and so far, I'm getting the same good results from mine. It is my understanding from Remington that the factory ignition system has been tested to as many as a dozen re-primes without failure, but they recommend five re-primes as a rule. My friend made a decision to reduce that number by one, so he sticks to four re-primes, for a total of five shots per case, and has yet to see leakage from quite a number of bags purchased of different lots. I purchased my ignition cases from Remington packaged in a bulk case lot. So far, I have shot ignition cases from that lot a total of five time, with four re-primes, and all continue to seal without leakage, same as my friend. I will continue to push these, and at least for now, the Remington recommendation for five re-primes, six firings per case, appear realistic. But, I don't feel it realistic to believe that one could expect that max dozen re-primes out of every case, in every lot, and every rifle. I'm thinking that even if my rifle averages much higher than the five re-primes, I'll probably back-off just to play it safe. So for now, my bulk purchase worked out to around $18 per bag, shipping was free, and at my current five shots, that works out to around 15 cents each. If I can match the Remington recommendation, that would bring it down to around 12 cents each. Not too terribly expensive, but no where near the volume of shots I saw Hankin get out of the single module in that video. Someone noted his vent liner is made of titanium. Maybe he can speak up, because I do not believe titanium is as hard as the 416 Stainless Steel at max hardness, 58 HRC. I believe titanium runs around 30 or so HRC. Maybe he uses a titanium nitride coating, TiN, which is a thin 0.00020 inch ceramic PVD hard coating that is gold in color. I've had TiN applied on parts before, it is a super hard coating. It is possible the vent liner is of a titanium alloy with the TiN applied, but it may be more likely it is a 416 Stainless Steel with a hardness in the 30HRC range with the ceramic coating applied, which is very hard. Interesting stuff.
 
Encore, 2-D of the picture could be deceiving, but looking at your photo, your brass does not appear to have a cone bevel to mate against the cone shaped nipple, it looks more like a recess. Looking at mine, they have a bevel cone that appear to have 100% contact along the entire depth (thickness) against the breech plug, like you see in the cutaway pics above. Your picture may be deceptive, but it appears the ignition cases have a narrower band of contact within the recess. If so, would it be possible to add a slight bevel to match that of the nipple, to get longer case life?
 
Inspected a case, and it seems to match that cutaway pic. The internal base of the ignition case has a raised donut shaped rib that runs the circumference. Within the interior circle of the rib, it is flat, and instead of a straight walled hole for the fire channel, it has a cone shaped hole, which appears to match the nipple end of the breech plug, which runs the thickness of the base. Narrow at the primer side, wider at the internal flat base side, with the seal running the entire thickness of the base against the nipple. Appears the mating of the ignition cases internal cone against the nipple, has the sealing pressure going as much outward against the brass as it is pressing straight back against the brass. I suspect that any recess within the case, at the flash hole, would reduce the overall depth and area of the mating surface against the nipple.
 
Ive done a few searches on those slug guns. There isnt a whole lot on their ignition. Most of what I could find used underhammer action.
wonder if you could fabricate some type of teflon or something washer or bushing that would go inside the brass on that ultimate BP
700UltMuzzleLoader_BreechPlugCut01.jpg
 
It looks like the Hankin rifle is using a Knight breech plug and nipple with his modules. That would probably rule out keeping the Remington 50cal barrel, as I'd reckon he would fit the Knight plug to a new barrel. Would that be correct?
 
sg.ellis2 said:
It looks like the Hankin rifle is using a Knight breech plug and nipple with his modules. That would probably rule out keeping the Remington 50cal barrel, as I'd reckon he would fit the Knight plug to a new barrel. Would that be correct?

No that would not be correct. Hankins makes his own breech plugs, and modules. He could easily make breech plugs and modules to fit the Remington Ultimate. Someone will, and they will be a popular item, IMO.
 
sg.ellis2 said:
Inspected a case, and it seems to match that cutaway pic. The internal base of the ignition case has a raised donut shaped rib that runs the circumference. Within the interior circle of the rib, it is flat, and instead of a straight walled hole for the fire channel, it has a cone shaped hole, which appears to match the nipple end of the breech plug, which runs the thickness of the base. Narrow at the primer side, wider at the internal flat base side, with the seal running the entire thickness of the base against the nipple. Appears the mating of the ignition cases internal cone against the nipple, has the sealing pressure going as much outward against the brass as it is pressing straight back against the brass. I suspect that any recess within the case, at the flash hole, would reduce the overall depth and area of the mating surface against the nipple.

Side by side. Yes the Rem case has some kind of raised or collar inside.

 
Busta said:
sg.ellis2 said:
It looks like the Hankin rifle is using a Knight breech plug and nipple with his modules. That would probably rule out keeping the Remington 50cal barrel, as I'd reckon he would fit the Knight plug to a new barrel. Would that be correct?

No that would not be correct. Hankins makes his own breech plugs, and modules. He could easily make breech plugs and modules to fit the Remington Ultimate. Someone will, and they will be a popular item, IMO.

If I have any further issues with my breech plug, I'll be trying to make Mr. Hankins a visit.
 
Busta said:
sg.ellis2 said:
It looks like the Hankin rifle is using a Knight breech plug and nipple with his modules. That would probably rule out keeping the Remington 50cal barrel, as I'd reckon he would fit the Knight plug to a new barrel. Would that be correct?

No that would not be correct. Hankins makes his own breech plugs, and modules. He could easily make breech plugs and modules to fit the Remington Ultimate. Someone will, and they will be a popular item, IMO.


Correct, he makes his own plugs. He had a post of the process from lathe to final product. He has already made plugs for Rem700 CF actions and T/C Encore actions including a BH209 smoker for Bob Parker. His plugs are getting stellar reviews. IIRC atleast one owner has reported over 1000 shots on a plug and its still within spec. The loads he was using FAR exceed the pressures BH209 can create. We are talking over well 40Kpsi. I doubt you will EVER see that from any BH209 load.
 
Okay, so then I take it one could use his breech plug and ignition system to replace the factory Remington, while keeping the same factory Remington barrel, so to shoot Blackhorn 209.

I wasn't concerned with the pressure shooting Blackhorn with his plug, but was looking for feedback from someone using at least 160 grains volume Blackhorn reference his system igniting that charge trouble free. Sounds like I need to talk to Parker first, and then give Hankin a ring. It would be a good backup plan if things don't work with the Remington system.

I got the info on Hankin using the Knight breech plug and nipple with his modules, from a spec sheet on his smokeless muzzleloader he builds off a short action Remington 700. It must have been in error.
 
At one time i think he did use a different plug.

As far as BH209 goes, ive shot 140grV load of BH209 with a Savage type plug and 45cal Pacnor barrel (275&300gr sabotless). No issues at all other than faster vent liner erosion. A tungsten bushing is going to remedy that this year.

I would rate his system even better suited for the task than my Savage plug. It ignites slower SML powders that are even harder to ignite than BH209 without a problem. You should see how easy his sabotless 45s load. WAY easier than a sabot.
 
Replace vents or replace plug? Seems like a lot of trouble to reinvent the wheel. Why not a plug, vent and barrel that is smoker or smokeless suitable? Not much to just move on up to a better plug ala Savage or SMI or Hankins et al... and then SML or smoker friendly. Lotsa work ?? and lotsa $ for no real improvement over what is already available. What up with "Big Green" can't they do a couple searches and see what the front line of ML is? W
 
I saw an RU in person last night at Gander Mtn. $1295 :shock:
Stainless with grey laminated stock. Sure was pretty, but waaaayyy too salty for me.
 
I think the suggested list was around $1200 or so when Remington introduced their Ultimate but now Remington has a suggested list of $949.00 for the model with the laminated stock. I can't imagine Gander Mtn. is moving too many at their loftier price. I ended up buying the not so pretty synthetic stocked model. If I can get it to throw some tight groups it will probably start looking a bit more pretty!
 
I've received a good deal of advice, here and on another board, both in posts and in PMs, from many, who do not own this new rifle, with suggestions and warnings reference the new Remington barrel, rifling, the Remington made breech plug, and their ignition system. Though I've yet to see any issue with my particular rifle reference these warnings, I decided to explore some of these suggestions to determine there feasibility as options in the event I ran into such problems, as warned, with my rifle. I've been given a few references to contact, one of whom I already knew, so I called and explored those options.

To quote Bob (Parker), the reports I've received contain "both fact and fiction".

This is where I stand, and I would suggest others to explore for themselves to determine such personal favorites and choices.

First, building a smokeless muzzleloader. I have two mutual aquantances with Bob, a custom smokeless rifle builder I've known for over a quarter century, and the man who shoots for the builder and hunts with his custom built rifle. Though many are making extremely accurate smokeless muzzleloaders, I cannot imagine any that could produce the long string of tiny groups shot at 500 yards and game animal kills at much further distances as this particular smokeless rifle. It is most definitely top shelf, and would likely be my choice if I went that route. But, I have zero interest in hunting with a smokeless muzzleloader, and due to current legalities, it would be a no-no. Black Powder (the real deal), Replicates of Black Powder (Pyrodex or 777), or Non-Replicate Substitutes (Blackhorn 209), would be mandatory.

Second, converting a smoker to smokeless. As much as the above, built from the ground up, custom smokeless muzzleloader is liked, if wanting a conversion made, Hankin gets the vote. I received a good deal of positive feedback on the Hankin barrel/breech plug conversion. Bob (Parker) had Hankin convert a T/C Pro Hunter and is pleased. But again, I have no interest in smokeless.

Third, the factory Remington Ultimate 50cal using Blackhorn 209. Most of my feedback in this area came from a personal friend, who shoots and hunts with his rifle using the Blackhorn, my own personal rifle, and Bob (Parker). The remaining feedback are from those I do not know from Adam, but they actually own and shoot the rifle. I believe Bob put it best, calling it "the most user friendly muzzleloader" he has shot. No issues with the new Remington breech plug and ignition, and pretty much nothing but positive feedback on the rifle and its performance. Trying to pin down differences between the old Johnston breech plug design, and the new Remington design, it appears to have improvements over and above that of just the steel used. The threads are finer, stronger, more protected, and resist erosion, to eliminate those issues experienced with the Johnston breech plug. The new design will break loose from full 100 in/lb torque with approximately only 80 in/lb applied torque, making it very user friendly. It does not experience the removal issues of the Johnston plug, stripped threads, rounded off nipples, etc. In addition, the sealing of the ignition case appears fairly good and uniform for the case life as recommended by Remington. I realize some are reporting second or third hand that someone else is seeing only one re-prime before failure, but, I've been unable to confirm this first hand. I may attempt a test, by repeatedly chambering a new case a half dozen times or so, and then fire the case. So it always possible that an excited new owner is wearing out a new case before firing the rifle the first time. But, I'm just not seeing this occur on my end, the rifle just plain works. As far as a drop-in Hankin plug to leave it 50cal sub powders with his module system, that animal does not appear to exist. If it did, there is no data to support it is capable of duplicating the ignition performance of the Remington ignition, by burning such a large volume of power within the barrel. All previous attempts using various modules and plugs had failed, hence the industry debate over the reality of burning 200 grains 777 pellets. It seems pretty clear that it is now proven with the new Remington plug, so that point is moot in my book. End results, feedback I have received from end users of this rifle have me leaning toward staying on my current track with the factory plug and ignition system. All the warnings I've received reference the barrel, rifling, breech plug, ignition cases, and running Blackhorn 209 seem to fall into Bob's category of fiction, and not fact. Absent any normal production line hiccups with assembly, it appears to be a well thought out and well executed production rifle that works.

Best :)
 
The owner picked up his RU this morning that I'd been working with. He brought his wife, who brought doggy treats knowing we have a small dog. She made a very good new best friend with those treats........ :wink:

He personally reviewed the entire process from start to date. After the final attempt at cleaning, the rifle was lubricated and put into my safe. When he arrived today I ran a patch down the barrel, basically for two reasons. First was to show him the condition of the patch, just swabbing out the lubrication. It came out black and he was quite surprised. I swabbed the barrel until the last patch came out in the condition it went into the barrel. He assumed the barrel was completely clean. I put on a NEW and UNUSED Montana Xtreme NYLON BRUSH and brushed the bore. Then ran another clean patch down the barrel, which came out black again. I patched again until they came out as clean as they entered.
Then second, the bore scope went down the barrel where he immediately noticed the tooling marks. He is an electrical and mechanical engineer with a number of custom CF rifles, so he has some clue about what a barrel should look like. He viewed the entire barrel from end to breech a number of times. His conclusion was also tooling chatter. The barrel was then re-lubricated.

He has already discussed his rifle with Remington, who wants the rifle sent back to them. He is sending additional photos, along with all the documentation. If what happens with this rifle is like one other rifle, the entire rifle will be replaced, not just a re-barrel. Matt Watts http://www.wattsammunition.com/ sold three rifles, two of which the owners were very happy with. The third was very displeased. Matt himself shot that RU and couldn't hit a 4 foot x 4 foot piece of cardboard at 37 yards. The rifle was sent back to Remington in October and Matt received a NEW replacement rifle without explanation. That's great for that owner.

I'm totally certain that Remington will correct this owner's rifle, either by re-barreling it or sending him a new rifle. He asked if I would still be willing to set the rifle up and develop the load when the rifle is returned. Of course I will......


I might add another owner's experience about removing the breech plug from his personal RU rifle. I asked for permission, which was given, to copy and paste his experience..........

"I got the breechplug out of the Rem. UML! Or rather, the gunsmith at Williams Gunsight did. After soaking the breech with kroil for a week, I tried one last time with a 1/2 inch drive socket. No go.
Even the 'smith had a little difficulty. He said the breechplug was coated with anti-sieze but was probably installed by a gorilla. The owners manual said to tighten it to 100 inch pounds. I'll just tighten it to "snug inch pounds".
My advice to new Rem UML owners.....take out, or have the breechplug taken out BEFORE you fire the rifle. If you are comfortable with having a non-removable breechplug......more power to you. It will just make it harder to clean well. [But it bugged the living daylights out of me not being able to remove it.]
For your info. the 5/16 deep well socket sold by Auto Zone has the right contour to get into the action and fit snugly over the nipple on the plug.
The best part was that Williams didn't charge me to remove it! Warranty work they said.
Today I am a happy man."
 
Hard for me to understand why you need to remove the breech plug when they say you don't need to. You don't on a traditional breech. Should be able to clean rifle with out doing the breech
 
It is hard for me to believe that Remington would put a half assed rifle out on the Market. Supposedly you have new people on this sight that do not have a clue about Inlines or Muzzle Loaders period. From what I read, it seems some people just don't like the Remington. Tool marks in a barrel , unless lapped will have tool marks unless it has been gouged . If I were a new person to this sight I would be so confused, I believe I would just by a sling shot. I haven't seen much on any rifle on here that isn't compared to smokeless ML. I agree with fellow above, if I get a chance I'll get a Remington.
 
Reference your post that the rifle couldn't hit a 4 foot x 4 foot piece of cardboard at 37 yards. Could you clarify? Are you saying the groups were off the mark greater than 2 feet when aiming at the center of the 4 foot by 4 foot board?? Or are you saying the groups were so much larger than 4 foot by 4 foot in diameter that they left a donut sized hole in the middle bigger than the board???

I'm pretty good at math, and just crunching the numbers reference a scope being mounted off, for the bore axis and the scope tube center to be askew greater than two feet at only 37 yards, with the receiver forward and rear base holes being 5.11 inches apart, the front and rear mounts would be markedly off a good 0.090". If you include maxing out the scope adjustment range, it would be even more askew. Be it the short action receiver was machined that far off, or the scope being mounted that far off, how was this not noticed when mounting the scope? Alarm bells should be going off when aligning the rings, if two piece, and if one piece, the collimator would indicate a big problem, long before bullets are sent down range on paper. If not talking scope, but talking the factory fixed sights, the front and rear sights would be so far askew that it would be noticeable to the naked eye, being they would be mounted off greater than half an inch.

The statement "couldn't hit a 4 foot x 4 foot piece of cardboard at 37 yards" sounds very dramatic. But in reality, who mounted the scope? What pieces and parts did they use, and how was such a large error missed during the mounting process??

Thanks :)
 
Back
Top