Sighting In My Triumph

[Muley Hunter]

I use 3 pellets........ 3 T7M pellets :d'oh!:

Have you left a will? oke:

I could shoot 4 50gr pellets......... :wink:

Ah yes. I just noticed your sig. I'm too old for that kind of recoil. I'd just use a .270, and save my cheek and shoulder.

 

[ENCORE50A]

That's why God let man invent the Lead Sled.

 

[Muley Hunter]

A little heavy to carry hunting.

 

[ENCORE50A]

A little heavy to carry hunting.

That's why God let man create quads and scabbards, along with slings.

 

[GM54-120]

Ok, my order with Carlos is changed to BH.

So much for the pellet experiment.

I hope this is not discouraging just an experiment but i would suggest getting a chrono if that was the intention. Experiment all you like but use hard data to form your own conclusions. I think there is enough "soft" data to theorize, WHs can be accurate and maybe more accurate than T7 pellets. Its the FPS claims and how they achieved those claims i find faulty and misleading.

 

[Muley Hunter]

Ok, my order with Carlos is changed to BH.

So much for the pellet experiment.

I hope this is not discouraging just an experiment but i would suggest getting a chrono if that was the intention. Experiment all you like but use hard data to form your own conclusions. I think there is enough "soft" data to theorize, WHs can be accurate and maybe more accurate than T7 pellets. Its the FPS claims and how they achieved those claims i find faulty and misleading.

As you've probably noticed. I don't post range reports. I'll only use a bench to sight in a gun, and then never go to the range again. All my practice is woods walks shooting from hunting positions. I let others do the chrono work, because they seem to enjoy it.

So, my experiment with WH would have been to sight in, and go hunt with them. I didn't want less fps though. Since i'm nor hunting the rifle seasons, and using scope. My shots will be longer, and i'd like as flat a shooting load as possible. Once I found out the fps were low with the WH I knew it was off the list. I have no desire to use 3 pellets.

A 100gr of BH with a 250gr T-EZ should work fine for me.

 

[Muley Hunter]

Analyze these ingredients.


Nitrate ester .....................................30 - 90%
Stabilizer, Proprietary ......................... 1 - 5%
Oxidizer, Mineral Not disclosed .............0 - 25%
Oxidizer, Organic Not disclosed............ 0 - 25%
Carbonaceous Substance Proprietary.... 0 - 10%

 

[GM54-120]

Nitrate esters are very similar to nitroglycerine. Usually something like Nitric acid, (another acid) and a form of alcohol or fuel source combined. I would prefer not to get into too much detail since that is extremely dangerous to make.

The majority of smokeless powders use nitrocellulose iirc but some also use a little nitroglycerine

The rest is too vague to guess other than combined its a BP sub with just enough organic material to make it legal/safe for ML use.

 

[Muley Hunter]

I'm sure you know it's BH 209.

I thought it was all pretty vague too. They really want to keep it a secret.

 

[ronlaughlin]

Analyze these ingredients.


Nitrate ester .....................................30 - 90%
Stabilizer, Proprietary ......................... 1 - 5%
Oxidizer, Mineral Not disclosed .............0 - 25%
Oxidizer, Organic Not disclosed............ 0 - 25%
Carbonaceous Substance Proprietary.... 0 - 10%

It seems to me a powder made using those ingredients will be expensive.

A powder made using those ingredients would be powerful.


Perhaps you could use 90g of powder instead of 100g. One could get 69 loads from just one bottle of powder. Just remember that 90 grains of powder weighs 63 grains.

 

[Muley Hunter]

Analyze these ingredients.


Nitrate ester .....................................30 - 90%
Stabilizer, Proprietary ......................... 1 - 5%
Oxidizer, Mineral Not disclosed .............0 - 25%
Oxidizer, Organic Not disclosed............ 0 - 25%
Carbonaceous Substance Proprietary.... 0 - 10%

It seems to me a powder made using those ingredients will be expensive. More than smokeless?

A powder made using those ingredients would be powerful. More than smokeless?


Perhaps you could use 90g of powder instead of 100g. One could get 69 loads from just one bottle of powder. Just remember that 90 grains of powder weighs 63 grains. Thanks for the math.

 

[ronlaughlin]

Yes, more expensive than smokeless, but less powerful than smokeless. More expensive than smokeless, but less powerful?? Hmm, does that seem strange?

 

[Muley Hunter]

I wish Western would just tell us why they need to charge so much. It might gain them some customers. Then again if they don't have a good reason it could lose customers.

Maybe silence is better.

 

[GM54-120]

My guess would be the same as why N110 is expensive. Sales vs cost to manufacture and import. Awesome clean CF powder but most people are happy with something almost as good for less money.

Considering the coating on BH209 appears similar to some CF powders and its (extruded), i would guess the manufacturing process is similar. The coating controls the burn rate as does its uniform shape. The coating also resists moisture fairly well and limits broken grains in the bottom of the jugs. I don't think any other sub can make those claims. They all seem to have some dust in the bottom and absorb moisture faster than BH209. None are as uniform in shape and size.

I know Western in in Montana but i thought BH209 was actually made in Canada.

Sales, well we all know Hodgdon/IMR owns by far the largest share of that market and the companies that manufacture them. They have sued at least one into oblivion for making a round pellet. Their distribution network is massive. They even played a part in which imported powders would be widely available in the USA.

I think its pretty clear why it cost so much even if i don't agree with the pricing.

 

[Muley Hunter]

I guess we just have to suck it up. Tough when my only income is my SS check. It's seems every month I have less and less left over for my shooting/hunting. Many months nothing is left for it.

I'm not fond of 2014.

 

[sabotloader]

Muley

The unlisted ingredients in BH are what actually what makes it possible to classify it as a ML substitute powder.

This clip from a gentleman that that did a chemical analysis of the powder...

 

[Muley Hunter]

I thought all in needed to be was equal in volume to BP? I guess it would be easy to make BH 209 a lot more powerful if they wanted to. The hard part was probably making it weak enough to be called a sub.

 

[sabotloader]

I thought all in needed to be was equal in volume to BP? I guess it would be easy to make BH 209 a lot more powerful if they wanted to. The hard part was probably making it weak enough to be called a sub.

Without these ingredients - BH would be classified as a true smokeless powder, with them it is classified as a ML sub.

Muley one of the reasons that Western claims cause the expense of BH is the way it is made in cylindrical tubes of powder.

Yet IMR 4759 is made the same way with out the ML ingredients and sells for $23.49 per pound.

IMR SR4759 is a bulky powder that really shines as a reduced load propellant for rifle cartridges. Its large grain size gives good loading density for reduced loads, enhancing velocity uniformity

It is engineered in the same type long cylindrical tubes... But it is a true smokeless.

The formula for BH was offered to Hodgdon/IMR first. Hodgdon turned the powder down because they did not believe it would be accepted by most states as a ML sub since it was a smokeless concoction.

It was them presented to General Dynamics of Canada who did produce the powder and from there the rest is history...

 

[GM54-120]

Except SR4759 is no longer being made and i paid more for it a lb than that,,,not by much though.

 

[ENCORE50A]

The cell phone signal booster for home will be your best choice,you can have a look at

I just checked that link and the first thing NORTON did, was block a virus........ FYI