Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Do you think the barrel thread design in the 450 vs 45/70 is due to the fact that Marlin approves of higher pressure in the 450 ? I mean think about if your 45/70 blew up at 40,000 you would have no claim with
Marlin. If the 450 did there would be a case.

Now every one don't start floping like a flounder! This is not about if the 45/70 can handle 40,000 I feel it can. and so do the powder manufactures. That should be settled by now. In a manufacturing process thats been around as long as Marlin. I'm sure they have figured out any parts or process that can be kept common saves money. So why do you think they would bother if it were not needed??

Insert little face eating popcorn here :D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,095 Posts
So why do you think they would bother if it were not needed??
I dont think they would. I'm thinking theyre safe at 40,000 PSi, just not safe by enough of a margin for Marlin. The threads I think probably get them over that hurdle AND like you said give them deniability if one should let go with a .450 equivilent load.
I dont sweat it much anyway. I tried loads in the vacinity of 40,000 & they arent fun to shoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #3






It kinda looks like thats where this one gave up at. Where the barrel threads into the receiver. :shock:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,095 Posts
Sure does. There was another floating around & it looked to let go in the same place. Its definatrly the weakest point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,759 Posts
Not only are the threads different, so are the breech and locking bolts. The breech bolt is identified with a stamping and the locking bolt is dyed to identify the different parts. As long as the SAAMI limit of 28.0K PSI stands for the 45-70, Marlin isn't going to say anything different.

The chamber walls are actually thicker on the 45-70, having complete chamber castings for both it and the 450 Marlin as this information is needed for my pressure trace work. The 45-70 chamber is .2232" thick on my rifle vs. .2055" for my 450 Marlin.

I don't have a problem loading my 1895G to 42.0K PSI, the same as my Marlin's chambered in 30-30, 444 Marlin, and others. I do have pressure trace equipment to monitor my load development. When writing about pressure, it's important that the numbers always be followed with "CUP" or "PSI" as there is quite a bit of difference between 40.0K PSI and 40.0 CUP. A 40.0K CUP load will measure just about 43.0K PSI! I think it is also very important, from my measured results, not to use the available data that is over the SAAMI limit with any other components than those listed. For instance, if you are using data for a 350-grain Hornady FP don't use it for any other bullet as powder compression and resulting pressure will be different. The same with OAL, etc.

I've been working with several Hodgdon powders in my 1895G with 350 and 425-grain lead boolits; BL-C2, Benchmark, H322, H335, H4198, H4895, and Varget. These are the Hodgdon powders that you would typically consider for the 45-70. I've come up with one rule of thumb. Don't ever compress any of these powders... Period. The two powders that could and will get you into trouble are H4198 and H355. H4198, when loaded to a 100% density, is going to produce 42.0K PSI so approach that load with caution. H335 at a 95% case density is going to push the pressure beyond 42.0K PSI and is the one powder that will go beyond 42.0K PSI with less than 100% density. This is cast boolit info only. Math will determine density but the easiest way to tell a load is not compressed is if you can hear the powder rattle in the case with the boolit seated.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,222 Posts
Looking at your data, Ranch Dog, I was suprised by the max on the 45-70 and your 350gr. bullet. (and H-322) I don't compress with my 405gr. MM, but that his the max I use on my 405gr.! I get 1980fps and a very very smooth load. Unforunately, it looks like I'm over pressure, even though it would be OK according to Hodgden with another 405gr. Jacketed bullet
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,077 Posts
I think it is also very important, from my measured results, not to use the available data that is over the SAAMI limit with any other components than those listed. For instance, if you are using data for a 350-grain Hornady FP don't use it for any other bullet as powder compression and resulting pressure will be different. The same with OAL, etc.
This answer is from Hodgdons referring to a load worked up with there data but changing three componants.The 300 grain Nosler/Remington Nickel brass and a different primer over the 300 grain Sierra.
Your loads should be just fine and certainly within the operating limits of your rifleYou may be running slightly higher pressures than our test data due to the use of the nickel plated brass and factory crimp. Nickel plating of brass does decrease the capacity of the brass by a tiny fraction and the factory crimp does a better job of retaining the bullet than a standard roll crimp. The increase in pressure over our results would be minor.



Some folks would point to the velocity you are getting and say that your pressures must be high to get this level of performance from your short barrel. There can be several explanations for this. Variation in chamber, throat, bore, different primers, brass, bullets and, of course, the test equipment can all cause changes in resultant velocity/pressure. As I am certain you are aware, pressure is not linear with velocity. And, as is commonly known, we shoot SAAMI test barrels with minimum chamber, bore, throat dimensions which means that, on average, consumer firearms will get lower pressure with the same loads due to increased chamber size and easy of bullet passage in the bore.



The bottom line here is that you are getting no signs of pressure that would indicate any problems. There is no research that would indicate your brass would give significantly higher pressures than the same brand of brass without plating. There is no research suggesting that there are significant differences in pressure caused by changing brands of large rifle primers. You are not experiencing any type of indication which would lead us to conclude that you have any problem at all using this load in your rifle.



Mike Daly

Customer Satisfaction
This is from John Barsness:
Lately, one of the constant hassles of publishing load data is the flood of people with their own strain-gauge setups who say, "I tested that load of yours and it only gets 57,000 psi, not 63,000." Which indicates one thing: how the average home handloader can miss the entire boat, even with sophisticated equipment. Without SAAMI "reference ammo," there is no way to tell whether the pressures you're getting with your strain-gauge set-up are accurate or not. Yes, you can read relative pressures, but 57,000 on your setup may really be 63,000.
Jayco
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,077 Posts
Gurn

I forgot to ask you at what pressure Wild West Guns loads there 1895 Marlin in .457 WWM/45-70? :lol: No one has any idea what happened to that Marlin I posted a year ago.Barrel obstructions are a common cause and when tested for the 454 casull,it was the action that went first in the Marlin 1895 somewhere in the 62-65,000 PSI range after about 20 shots.The Winchester Mod '94 went in about 40 shots..Not the barrel nor the threads,the receiver.

McPhearson has an article on barrel threads and the 45-70 at 50,000 PSI changing the threads.Well,Wild West Guns 45,000 CUP is all but 50,000 PSI.As far as published data goes..Here is another view:
Even the peizoelectric system is a bit rough, the crusher system is rougher than that, and PRE and CHE so rough as to border on useless, or maybe even dangerous. Some labs are meticulous in their methods, and some not so much.

There is probably a good 2,500 PSI difference between a cartridge fired in a test barrel, and the same cartridge fired in an average barrel.

You can't really believe the pressures listed for loads in the loading books, because the lot to lot variation in powder is substantial.

Given the vagaries of lab to lab differences, the lot to lot differences in powder, SAAMI's failure to control one of the most important variables, and the differences between test barrels and my rifles, I trust my own measurements more than the ones in books. Part of my profession is doing Measurement System Analysis, and I base most of that opinion on solid data.
Jayco
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
I think John Barsness may be ready to retract that statement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,077 Posts
jackfish said:
I think John Barsness may be ready to retract that statement.
Howdy Jackfish

This is from Denton Bramwell
My conclusion is that the strain gauge system gives you excellent repeatability, and the
absolute accuracy is probably decent.
But nobody can tell you how decent.
A good “benchmark” is to shoot several types of commercial ammunition, note the peak
pressure, and stay below that.
I carefully disguised myself, and slipped into an out-of-
town sporting goods establishment, and bought a box of Winchester Super X, and some
Federal Premium “high energy” ammo for my 30-06. It just didn’t seem right to shoot
“store bought” ammunition, but I did it anyway, for the sake of science. These two
registered 51.9 KPSI and 58.9 KPSI, both completely plausible figures for 30-06
ammunition. The Federal Premiumhad quite a bit of variation, and gave me very slightly
sticky bolt lift on a few of the extra zippy rounds. So, in that rifle, I stay enough below
58.9 KPSI to provide a margin of safety for hot days, and feel that I have a more reliable
indicator than conventional pressure signs
Jayco
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,759 Posts
Dr. A said:
Looking at your data, Ranch Dog, I was suprised by the max on the 45-70 and your 350gr. bullet. (and H-322) I don't compress with my 405gr. MM, but that his the max I use on my 405gr.! I get 1980fps and a very very smooth load. Unforunately, it looks like I'm over pressure, even though it would be OK according to Hodgden with another 405gr. Jacketed bullet
I don't know what to tell you Dr. A other than I'm just recording what I see with these particular boolits. Your boolit might reveal a different trace. I do believe what I collect more than what I see from the published data. I believe in what is collect at the rifle vs. a test barrel. As far as "spec ammo" to verify the data, I use it. The ammo manufacturers are very good about giving you the average PSI generated by a given lot of ammo. When the pressure recorded matches what the manufacturer says it should be, I don't know how you can argue with the results.

Both pressure and velocity plot as a sine wave but math is used to make the curve. Actually shooting the data beyond what I've recorded might see a reduction in pressure (beyond 100% case density) before it starts increasing again. Like velocity values represented on a chronograph, you also see an different pressures across a given collection string. Averages and the devations from average are calculated in the same manner as the chrony.

Why I've decided to post the information for use with boolits dropped from my molds is that is the most common request I receive... "have you got any load data?" You won't get in trouble with this data.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Without SAAMI "reference ammo," there is no way to tell whether the pressures you're getting with your strain-gauge set-up are accurate or not.
This suggests that a strain gauge has to be "calibrated" using some kind of reference ammo, which is pure poppy-cock. Denton is suggesting using commercial ammo to see what strain gauge values it produces in your rifle and then using that value as a benchmark for your rifle. But in the case of one's 30-06, they could just as easily not use any commercial ammo at all and just take their reloads to 58,000 PSI according to one's strain gauge and be alright.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,932 Posts
jackfish said:
Without SAAMI "reference ammo," there is no way to tell whether the pressures you're getting with your strain-gauge set-up are accurate or not.
This suggests that a strain gauge has to be "calibrated" using some kind of reference ammo, which is pure poppy-cock. Denton is suggesting using commercial ammo to see what strain gauge values it produces in your rifle and then using that value as a benchmark for your rifle. But in the case of one's 30-06, they could just as easily not use any commercial ammo at all and just take their reloads to 58,000 PSI according to one's strain gauge and be alright.
Any electrical/mechanical device can be faulty, at any time, thats why they say too shoot some factory rounds, not to "calibrate" but to verify the device is working. Thats called developing a Baseline, as long as your baseline is close your device is working.

From your statement above you must be very trusting, I do shoot a known load through my Chronograph everytime I use it to see if my chronograph is working OK, Remember what uncle Ronnie said: Trust but Verify.................................Marko
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Jayco ya old coot!! everytime I miss seeing ya post I haul off and start something I know no matter how hard ya try, yer gonna speak up. I aint saying that old 1895 wont hold 90,0000000 PSI. Heck I never tried it!! :lol:

Note what I said

Now every one don't start floping like a flounder! This is not about if the 45/70 can handle 40,000 I feel it can. and so do the powder manufactures. That should be settled by now.
Any how, I really thank ya for signing up on the ADK board. Need all the help we can get there. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,047 Posts
Good topic Gurn, and interesting info RD.

I am actually quite surprised by your comments on compressed loading with H322 and Varget. I load those by the book, as well as IMR 4895, and not always max loads though often compressed, and have often thought that they were relatively safe powders since it is hard to fit enough to get excess pressures. I have always been more careful with the 4198 with heavy loads as it seems clear that one could get more pressure than desired quite easily with them - (though they do make some good shooting ammo!)

Maybe it's a cast bullet thing :lol: , a Lee mold thing specifically, huh? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,077 Posts
Any electrical/mechanical device can be faulty, at any time, thats why they say too shoot some factory rounds, not to "calibrate" but to verify the device is working.
Starbow is 100% correct.Denton has said this many times to make sure there are no air locks or anything else and you have connected it properly with the right stuff.

Jayco :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,077 Posts
Denton wrote:
The purpose of firing commercial ammunition in an instrumented rifle is NOT to perform a calibration. The purpose is to double check to make sure you haven't done something like getting an air bubble under the strain gage, or made a big error in your dimensions, which will give you very "off" results. It's just reassurance that all is working well.
I might add..When I see Ken Oehler and John Barsness disagreeing with dentons findings,I take notice.You have three top names in the business not agreeing on pressure and data,thats scary.

Ken Oehler and Denton Bramwell had a good disagreement on Bramwells formula's for converting CUP to PSI,politely!!!!

How can you pick one of any of the three to be the final word in anything with there experiences?

Jayco :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
How can you pick one of any of the three to be the final word in anything with there experiences?
Ya don't pick any of em. Ya just got to the trailer and......................
......................... ASK JAYCO!!!!!! :lol: :lol:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,759 Posts
Golsovia said:
Good topic Gurn, and interesting info RD.

I am actually quite surprised by your comments on compressed loading with H322 and Varget. I load those by the book, as well as IMR 4895, and not always max loads though often compressed, and have often thought that they were relatively safe powders since it is hard to fit enough to get excess pressures. I have always been more careful with the 4198 with heavy loads as it seems clear that one could get more pressure than desired quite easily with them - (though they do make some good shooting ammo!)

Maybe it's a cast bullet thing :lol: , a Lee mold thing specifically, huh? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, the good thing about cast boolits is that when you reach approximately 105% case density, you can no longer seat the boolit! With the boolit lube it is hard to keep the boolit seated long enough to get it crimped!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,759 Posts
I decided to give some attention to loads beyond 100% in my charts. First things first, I looked at the various powders from Hodgdon and after passing 105% case density the boolits become hard to seat. Like I mentioned earlier, you seat them and before I can turn the turret to the Lee FCD, the boolit lube allows them to back out of the case due to the compression of the powder.

So with cast boolits, the only powder I've charted out of the three that will get you in trouble with the 45-70 is H4198. I'm going to shoot H335 later in the week and I believe it will also have the potential to exceed a reasonable pressure for the 1895s but I will see what happens.

H4198 and the 450 Marlin seem balanced. The 105% density load is just at 43.5K PSI. This isn't every day shooting. The 1895, a 350-grain boolit, and 43.5K of pressure really will talk to you. A rancher over 2 miles away called me to ask what the heck I was shooting!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top