vv-n120

[Grouse]

All the following are with the 165NBT:300 Sav N-140 44g 2492'/sec; 308 Win IMR-4350 50g 2792; 30-06 RL22 63g 3002'/sec; 300H&H H-4350 70g 3168'/sec; 308 Norma Mag RL 19 3158'/sec; 300 win Mag RL22 79g 3290'/sec;30-378 H 50BMG 116g 3333'/sec. Which is the correct load for the 165NBT?

How are bottle-neck cartridge loads remotely relevant to 10ML-II saboted loads? Do you have any goal here at all?

The answer is simple: just shoot through a chronograph.

Other than that, if you want to guess, then guess. If you really want to know-- there is a such a very, very easy way to find out. Nothing beats pulling the trigger.

As it is, nothing to date shows any warranted concern about temperature with N110 / 250 gr. sabots, N120 / 300 gr. sabots, or 5744 with either one. Surely there are far better things to do than chase mythical velocity losses never observed.

Savage Shooter explains velocity loss right here.
http://modernmuzzleloader.com/phpBB/vie ... sc&start=0

 

[SW]

All the following are with the 165NBT:300 Sav N-140 44g 2492'/sec; 308 Win IMR-4350 50g 2792; 30-06 RL22 63g 3002'/sec; 300H&H H-4350 70g 3168'/sec; 308 Norma Mag RL 19 3158'/sec; 300 win Mag RL22 79g 3290'/sec;30-378 H 50BMG 116g 3333'/sec. Which is the correct load for the 165NBT?

How are bottle-neck cartridge loads remotely relevant to 10ML-II saboted loads? Do you have any goal here at all?

The answer is simple: just shoot through a chronograph.

Other than that, if you want to guess, then guess. If you really want to know-- there is a such a very, very easy way to find out. Nothing beats pulling the trigger.

As it is, nothing to date shows any warranted concern about temperature with N110 / 250 gr. sabots, N120 / 300 gr. sabots, or 5744 with either one. Surely there are far better things to do than chase mythical velocity losses never observed.

I think the principle should be clear: that as more powder is used, a slower powder will generate a greater velocity and at the same or lower pressure than a smaller amt of a faster powder. There is a smaller list of straight walled cartridges from which to demonstrate what I was trying to demonstrate but I thought the progressive 30 cal list would suffice. Do you think that the 10-ML2 doesn't follow the same principle? If so, why? The straight walled cartridges do. Does this gun defy normal interior ballistics? We, by determining how much powder capacity we want to use, can choose our own chamber size - if you want more chamber size then use a slower powder , raise the velocity and don't increase the pressure. This is just a basic principle. Why should a smokeless MLer not follow this pattern? Who says that 45gs+/- is the only acceptable load for a 250g bullet bullet, or 60g for a 300g bullet? It may be optimum efficiency wise but not the only choice. What if I want to get into diminishing returns and have a 300 Win Mag type chamber as opposed to a 308. Should we legislate that only 308s can be used because we believe that the most efficient, in our opinion , and the only way to go? What's wrong with that - I'm still keeping pressures the same or less. Yes, we will burn more powder for a smaller velocity increase; but that is what is done with cartridge guns. The 300 Weatherby isn't nearly as efficient as a 308 in powder usage but it has its place and can be chosen by its owner. I like the book loads and think of them as parallel to 308 loads(my favorite 30 cal cartridge). The 308 is, to me, the most efficient 30 cal comercally available and what I own and use. The RMEF 300 Win Mag, won by my son, stays in the gun safe; yet, at times it has its place. If I were going to white tail hunt where extremely long shots were possible, I'd likely use it. Same with the 10-ML2, some people may want to shoot the 250SST @ 2600+ at <35,000psi and they can do it. Why should they not do this if they so desire? I still prefer the 42g VV-110 load but accept that 85gs of a slower powder and 2600'/sec is viable for those who choose to do so.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the principle should be clear: that as more powder is used, a slower powder will generate a greater velocity and at the same or lower pressure than a smaller amt of a faster powder. There is a smaller list of straight walled cartridges from which to demonstrate what I was trying to demonstrate but I thought the progressive 30 cal list would suffice. Do you think that the 10-ML2 doesn't follow the same principle?

No, it does not-- for the simple reason that all 10ML-II loads are 100% loading density.

Characterization of a powder as "slower" is hard to do; one of the reasons no two burn rate charts agree on powder speed. Depending on application, they may change places. Also, there is no direct correlation between single-base and double-based powders.

Here's one burn rate chart: http://www.varmintal.com/pburn.htm that shows 5744 as a slower powder than SR-4759. Yet, 5744 though called "slower" has both higher pressure and lower velocity in a 10ML-II than 4759.

 

[SW]

I think the principle should be clear: that as more powder is used, a slower powder will generate a greater velocity and at the same or lower pressure than a smaller amt of a faster powder. There is a smaller list of straight walled cartridges from which to demonstrate what I was trying to demonstrate but I thought the progressive 30 cal list would suffice. Do you think that the 10-ML2 doesn't follow the same principle?

No, it does not-- for the simple reason that all 10ML-II loads are 100% loading density.

Characterization of a powder as "slower" is hard to do; one of the reasons no two burn rate charts agree on powder speed. Depending on application, they may change places. Also, there is no direct correlation between single-base and double-based powders.

Here's one burn rate chart: http://www.varmintal.com/pburn.htm that shows 5744 as a slower powder than SR-4759. Yet, 5744 though called "slower" has both higher pressure and lower velocity in a 10ML-II than 4759.

I don't understand how the 100% load density of a ML takes away from the general principle, I'm stating. Most of the loads mentioned are either 100% or very near. Absolute catagorization of a powder's speed may be difficult to do, but a general catagorization still applies. VV-110 is faster than VV-120, VV-130, etc.

 

[Anonymous]

The "general principle" of slower powders is horrifically flawed, as a simple burn rate position does not address heat of explosion, geometry of particles, single vs. double vs. triple base, powder coatings, the amount of nitration in the cellulose, the overall energy content of the powder, etc.

Endless variations in powder column height, correspondingly longer or shorter usable barrel lengths, lubricity of specific sabot, bearing surfaces of projectile, shot start pressure, and yes-- variations in loading density all play roles rather than what some might just call a faster or slower powder.

What shot start pressure do you think is correct in the 10ML-II? Without that, you are automatically way off track.

 

[SW]

The "general principle" of slower powders is horrifically flawed, as a simple burn rate position does not address heat of explosion, geometry of particles, single vs. double vs. triple base, powder coatings, the amount of nitration in the cellulose, the overall energy content of the powder, etc.

Endless variations in powder column height, correspondingly longer or shorter usable barrel lengths, lubricity of specific sabot, bearing surfaces of projectile, shot start pressure, and yes-- variations in loading density all play roles rather than what some might just call a faster or slower powder.

What shot start pressure do you think is correct in the 10ML-II? Without that, you are automatically way off track.

OK, I've read all of this but what does this have to do at all with Ron S shooting a 250SST with a 65g load of VV-120? Just why is that not a good load? Why would a 65g VV-120 load with possibly 35,000psi and 2460'/sec be unacceptable as compared with a 43g VV-110/250SST with appx 34,000psi and 2360'/sec? I'm just missing the point. Why would a slightly higher IMR-4198 load be unacceptable? What would it be improper to use a 85g H-322 load @ 2600'/sec if it didn't exceed some predetermined pressure - say 35,000psi? This is what my posts have really been about - your statement that VV-120 is an improper powder for a 250g bullet - that it is a 300g bullet powder.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm just missing the point.

You certainly are. If the choice is a 250 gr. bullet, both N110 and 5744 are superior propellants with very, very long well-proven track records of reliability and consistency. Both will cleanly kill deer at whatever range your skill allows you to accurately place a bullet.

Use of heavier, bulkier charges results in more recoil, more fouling, more cost per shot, and a reduction in usable barrel length. None of these make any sense in optimum load selection.

Further, it introduces the NEEDLESS possibility of temperature sensitivity that you have injected here without substantiation, and seem to enjoy obsessing about.

 

[SW]

I'm just missing the point.

Use of heavier, bulkier charges results in more recoil, more fouling, more cost per shot, and a reduction in usable barrel length. None of these make any sense in optimum load selection.

Further, it introduces the NEEDLESS possibility of temperature sensitivity that you have injected here without substantiation, and seem to enjoy obsessing about.

I don't enjoy obsessing about temp sensitivity, I have just observed it with lower pressure loads as have others. I do want to minimize it by avoiding the conditions that cause it.
In response to your 1st point, your statement that VV-120 was not a suitable powder for a 250g bullet is what got me started. This after a fellow board member stated he had a good load with it and was satisfied and questioned whether it would have temp sensitivity. You mention the possibility of temp sensitivity but appear to reject that pressure has a factor in this even though every source I've contacted says it does. Granted I haven't submitted my info to any senior ballisticians, nor have I stated that doing so is the minimally acceptable action to take. In essence what he did was the same as a person laying down his 308 and getting a 30-06, picking up appx 100'/sec with a 20% increase in powder, a slower powder at that, yet not increasing the pressure. It sounds like to me that you are, in essence, saying that a 308 is the only way to go. If black powder came in grades such as 2F, 2.1F, 2.2F,up thru 4.0F, I wonder what loads would be used with a 0.495 RB out of a 32" 66 twist barrel amongst shooters at competitions? All the same granulation, I'll bet not. Why should we? I just don't understand how you can decree that that is an inappropriate powder when a user has worked it up, is satisfied with it, etc. Is this gun to be used only with the most efficient load like a 308 or can it not be used up and down the range? Just who makes this determination ?

 

[Savage Shooter]

:huh?: :twisted: :shock: :?: :idea: :!: :? :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

You REALLY need to re-read this thread rather than engaging in misquoting.

DWHunter stated that [N120] "This powder is best suited for the 300gr class bullet."

Savage Shooter stated "That is right, n120 is THE perfect powder for 300 gr bullets. For 250 gr bullets you will get much better performance with 4759, n110 or 5744."

They both could not be more correct.

You tried to change the topic for whatever reason to a .308 cartridge comparision, apparently not understanding the difference in what you called a general loading principle. I answered you:

The "general principle" of slower powders is horrifically flawed, as a simple burn rate position does not address heat of explosion, geometry of particles, single vs. double vs. triple base, powder coatings, the amount of nitration in the cellulose, the overall energy content of the powder, etc.

Endless variations in powder column height, correspondingly longer or shorter usable barrel lengths, lubricity of specific sabot, bearing surfaces of projectile, shot start pressure, and yes-- variations in loading density all play roles rather than what some might just call a faster or slower powder.

What shot start pressure do you think is correct in the 10ML-II? Without that, you are automatically way off track.

You apparently ignored those factors, and changed topics yet again: SW: "OK, I've read all of this but what does this have to do at all with Ron S shooting a 250SST with a 65g load of VV-120?"

Now, you change back to cartridges stating, SW: "It sounds like to me that you are, in essence, saying that a 308 is the only way to go."

Steve, really. This stuff is not all that tough. I'm not discussing bottle-nosed cartridges, no .308 essences.

N110 and 5744 are excellent propellants for 250 grain bullets, and N120 is ideally suited for 300 grain bullets. If you cannot understand this, disagree with it, or have powders that you can PROVE are somehow better-- then please do so.

If I could find a better powder than N120 for 300 grain bullets, I'd be shooting it. Do you really think differently? :shock:

As far as staying on topic, your new injection of roundballs and blackpowder could not be more peculiar. Meet you in the new .308 / roundball forum? :lol:

This stuff was never designed to be difficult-- 1 powder, 1 sabot, one bullet. It has been that very, very simple premise for some 16 years now.

Knurling bullets, insertion of metal washers, duplex loads, sub-bases, etc., are all signs of horribly poor load development, if not insanity. :shock:

It has been said before, right here, and it remains true:

With all of the nonsense and clumsy "load development" attempted over the last several years, it should be more and more clear . . .

That there is nothing (yet) that comes close to substantially exceeding the reliability and performance of N110 for 250 gr. sabots, and N120 for 300 grain sabots. That's just the way it is.

 

[SW]

FINAL post, by me I think, on this subject. We are in total agreement on what are the most efficient and likely the most practical loads. It seems to me that disagree though on the fact that other loads can be viable, depending on the desires of the shooter. We also disagree on what can be "much better performance". If 42gs VV-110 obtains 2335'/sec or so at a given pressure and a larger amt of a slower powder gets a higher velocity at the same pressure, just which is "much better performance"? I do think my analogies are valid concerning cartridges, even bottleneck. If you desire I could post a parallel set of computations from Quick Load for a straight walled cartridge, 458 300g Barnes, 35,000psi, 100% loaded that ranges from 40-110gs of an ideally selected propellant. As the pressure is held constant, the powder selected by the program is a slower powder, and the velocity steadily increases from the 40g load to the 110g load. Who determines what is the best load? There are trade-offs as the powder wt increases. Each shooter should have that choice IMO. I think it is noteworthy that RonN has choisen a different route than Savage/Toby did. Who is wrong? IMO neither.
I guess to just get to the heart of the matter I have been bothered by the decrees that there is only one way and that those who travel other roads and have done extensive testing such as Rick Bibby and others be referred to as "Dummies" and other demeaning terms and the use of highly emotional adjectives. This is new territory and people are going to explore it - period! They should be allowed that freedom w/o attacks. "Traditional" MLing has gone thru the same with conicals, saboted rounds, BP substitutes, pelleted propellants, 209 primers, in-lines, etc. . We now have almost an infinite wt of bullets and propellants - they will be explored. The nature of mankind is just like that.
Did you ever resist or make negative comments concerning the use of smokeless propellants in MLers - including Savage 10-ML? If so, why did you change? Could some of these matters not fit in the same category. I don't know what more to say, I just wish there could be a little more "live and let live" attitude.
I'm finished and truely do appreciate all the very good things you have contributed to the smokeless MLing world.
Steve White

 

[Anonymous]

FINAL post, by me I think, on this subject. We are in total agreement on what are the most efficient and likely the most practical loads.

Just what, pray tell, is wrong with that? :shock:


The entire focus, and purpose of mentioning specific combinations that work exceedingly well in my test guns is the hope that it will prove to be a time saver and work equally well for others. That's all there is to it.

My log books are chock full of fabulously innovative loads that do not work well at all. No one cares about those; and there is little point in mentioning things that do not work. I've discovered many, many loads that are worthless.

Relentless talk of pressure is meaningless, because no casual shooter I know has an accurate way of measuring it. Comparatively few muzzleloaders use chronographs. I do have a small advantage, as I can have my loads confirmed by dual radial transducer pressure guns. Pressure is relatively unimportant-- it varies from sabot to sabot, bullet to bullet, gun to gun, and saying "pressure" does not adequately describe an entire pressure curve, heat of combustion-- just a nanosecond node of peak. The "Fool's Folly" of more powder is discussed in a very good article in the latest Accurate Powder reloading manual; I wish everyone would read it.

Sometimes, when things are invasively stupid, counterproductive, irrational, and dangerous-- they do need to be illuminated. Duplex loads, 28 ga. wads, 3 hole ventliners, Toby Bridges, etc., have done nothing but set smokeless muzzleloading back. That much should be obvious to anyone.

Erring on the side of caution and safety is the watershed of responsible load development. No one I know really needs or wants more than one accurate load for deer hunting. It is needless complication with no goal in mind.

5744 w/ 250 or 300 saboted bullets will cleanly take anything on hooves limited only by an individual's field marksmanship. Just this year, 45 gr. of 5744 and a 300 gr. XTP took a deer at a laser verified 430 yards. That is holdover and windage from hell, and well exceeds my comfort level. For those who seek it, learn their exterior ballistics, and practice religiously-- it is there.

N110 with 250 gr. bullets; N120 with 300 grain bullets has never been bettered. I can find nothing wrong with picking the combination that suits you the best from 5744 / N110 / N120-- learning the trajectory, and going hunting.

A great deal of derision has been directed at the concept of "Safe, Clean, & Simple." It is safe, clean, and simple that has saved those dim-witted enough to not remove their ramrod from the barrel before firing their 10ML-II from injury-- again, again, and again. And again.

Rather than whine and complain and destroy, we should be thankful that a company with the stature and integrity of Savage Arms Company makes a quality smokeless muzzleloader for us as stock, mainstream product. No other major manufacturer ever has. :shock:

Most people to this day do not appreciate what it really is. The Shooting Sports Industry's 2003 Manufacturer of the Year, Savage Arms, was also awarded the Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence "Rifle of the Year"-- the Savage Accu-Trigger heavy barrel 12BVSS varmint rifle.

The current 10ML-II is its muzzleloading brother: same frame, same action, same barrel profile, same pillar / recoil lug system-- even the stocks are interchangeable. That's exactly what it is.

There is only one purpose in owning a muzzleloading hunting rifle, and that is to enjoy it. Please continue to enjoy yours.

 

[Rifleman]

Bravo ! I certainly did enjoy this discussion. I appreciate it when two different opinions are expressed with candor and thought. Gives me something to think about.

 

[MCee67]

rayer: :huh?:

 

[dwhunter]

:applause: