Printable View
New on the market and nice to have Randy Wakeman do some test shooting for us.
I see that Randy does his powder loads by weight, rather than volume....any one have any idea as to why this is might be preferable ?
http://www.remington.com/pages/news-...zleloader.aspx
Found some follow up info while reading.....
Quote:
The rifle is a bog-standard Remington 700 with a muzzleloader barrel pressed into the front of it. The gun uses pre-formed or loose powder and commonly available muzzleloading caliber bullets, but the nifty part is at the back. Instead of needing to slide small primers onto yet smaller nipples, the gun uses modified .308 Wnchester brass with standard rifle primers to touch off the powder charge. It makes for a much easier loading experience, and those who already reload modern cartridges will be able to replace the primers on these as well. Or you can just buy them pre-primed.
The only problem with this gun is that you still need to visit your local FFL to pick one up. Because the action is still a standard short-action Remington 700 and you can easily crank the barrel off and replace it with a .308 Win tube it doesn’t meet the requirements to be sold NICS-free. Muzzleloading hunters might overlook that small inconvenience, but for those whose past history might preclude them from purchasing anything but “antique” firearms it will definitely keep them from buying one.
I don't shoot a muzzleloader, but I know that for handloading, powder weight is preferred over volume if you want to produce repeatable results. The actual amount of chemical (powder) is measured in mass, not volume. With powders, the volume is a function of density, and the density can change if you tap your powder measure an extra time to get the powder to settle in the measure, if you scoop it slightly differently, or if you apply a little bit more or less pressure across the top of the measure when you scrape the excess powder off, etc. Also, you can't tell the difference between a scoop with a couple more or less granules of powder by looking at a full powder measure. The difference of a few granules can make a noticeable difference in the mass of powder charge.
Oh I agree rf2..when reloading centerfires etc you HAVE to do it by weight........but when using black powder (or substitutes like T7 and Blackhorn 209) almost everyone use volume measurements. Most changes in increments in the 10 grain range..ie..switching from 80-90 grains (by volume) before you notice any real changes.
I'll have to get out the scale and see how much a difference it makes between 100 grs of T7 by weight vs. 100 gr by volume.
I read :
Quote:
By actual weight, it is not the same. 100 grains measured by volume of Goex FFg is about 101.3 grains by weight. 100 grains measured by volume of Pyrodex RS is about 72.5 grains by weight.
Mike, with regards to the quote you posted:
When muzzleloader shooters measure powder, do they assume the same powder measure that they use for one powder can be used for another powder? For example would you use the same volumetric measure that gives 100 grains of GOEX FFg and expect to get 100 grains of Pyrodex RS?? That sounds dangerous.
Hodgen's provides the following notes on that issue:
Quote:
All charges of Triple Seven or Pyrodex should be measured by VOLUME not weight. A simple, adjustable blackpowder measure is the correct tool for this job. All loads listed in this brochure are measured by VOLUME.
Triple Seven is a high energy product designed to provide the muzzleloading hunter with higher velocities when used in the same VOLUME as blackpowder. To duplicate a blackpowder load velocity using Triple Seven, you must decrease the powder charge by 15%. *See WARNING below.
Pyrodex is lighter in weight than blackpowder and weighs only about 70% as much as blackpowder. However, because Pyrodex yields more energy per pound than does blackpowder, the same volume of Pyrodex gives similar performance to blackpowder. Pyrodex loads given in this manual for muzzleloading guns are measured by volume, not weight.
https://www.hodgdon.com/loading.html
In Sam Fadala's book "Black Powder Loading Manual" he gives the volume weight and the actual weight of the loads he tests. Using black powder there is rarely more than a grain's weight difference - especially with the coarser FFg.
For instance: 50 gr FFg by volume = 50.2 gr by weight, 80 gr FFg by volume = 80.1 gr by weight.
40 gr FFFg by volume = 41.2 gr by weight, 50 gr FFFg by volume = 51.8 gr by weight.
There's a big difference with Pyrodex. 120 gr Pyrodex by volume = 82 gr by weight.
I can see using weighed charges in BP. I would first do several volume charges say at 100 gr by vol and weigh each of those volume charges and come up with an average weight. After which you could reliably weigh out your charges for that one only. If you change the volume, wash, rinse, repeat. I "think" it could improve accuracy as it does with CF cartridges.
HA
I don't think there would be enough variance in the weight if your using a volumetric measure properly...flush to the lip every time.
Certainly not to warrant the effort to pre-weigh every load. An 80 gr scoop is an 80 gr scoop :)
But I see he is using the same quick load powder tube/flask idea that I recently bought. Maybe sitting in his shop it's easier to use the scoop on his scale and pour the powder directly into the quick load tube. I can't see it would make a difference either way....as long as your consistent.
He is using blackhorn 209 but anyways. He likely weighs it because of his previous experience in shooting smokeless powder in the savage 10ml. Its more precise.
That's the key word Mike.
Consistent.
HA
Yup !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by huntaway
Back to the rifle itself...quite the beast. If I read it right, it adapts a Black Powder barrel to the Remington 700 receiver. So you could buy yourself a .308 Win and swap barrels and use it as a .50 cal. ML. Nice to have the versatility of ownership.
I'd also be interest in seeing what they are calling the close breach system using the Remington 9 ½ large magnum rifle primers. Hard to tell if that is a productive innovation.
Rather steep price all in all at $1,300 U.S.
This really isn't a new thing. People have been building smokeless customs based on different actions for a while now. Many are putting .45cal barrels on and shooting sabotless.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
http://prbullet.com/lrvf.htm
http://dougsmessageboards.proboards....-muzzleloading
New as in the Remington 700 Ultimate only hit the market in Apr 2014....it's also not smokeless.Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
I don't think there are that many commercial Rifles out there that have optional centerfire and/or BP barrels.
The new primer system on the Remington in a close breach that I haven't see before. That link to the PR website is only a reducer/adapter to use a pistol primer instead of the old shotgun 209 primer.
So really this model other than the primer system isn't any different then the regular 700ml of old. I think I will stick with the Thompson center encore.
Yea, other than the ability to swap barrels, it wouldn't be worth the cost for me either.
I'm sure glad I was able to get a 12 ga BP barrel for my Traditions Pursuit when I did....now that option has been a real bonus :)
I know they don't market this as smokeless but the concept has been done that's all I'm saying. Remington is just taking those ideas and trying to make a buck. If you were to look at pr bullets website thoroughly you would see more of what I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
http://prbullet.com/prohntr.htm
http://prbullet.com/hornet.htm
Found a video that explains the new ignition system that peeked my interest.
Hard to fathom shooting an ML with x4 T7 50/50 pellets :scream:
All in all...I think I'll keep looking for a .45 Flintlock...stick with patch and ball :)
I fully understand what your saying, I bought one of those Pistol Primer kits from Cecil some 10+ yrs back. The idea was to replace the 209 shotgun primers while using the existing (slightly modified in some cases) breech plugs....they worked, but the idea was made pretty much obsolete by the introduction of reduced strength Muzzleloader specific 209 primers.Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
Interestingly, this 'new' idea from Remington is actually doing the opposite, increasing the primer strength to use magnum rifle primers. It's needed I guess to ensure ignition of the x4 pellets. All in the quest to gain more ft/sec for long range shooting.
Remington used the breech plug design from Johnsons Ultimate muzzleloader.Probably why it's new name has Ultimate incorperated in it. It has a reliable ignition with no crud ring.
It really isn't the same as the original 700ml, it had a slam fire design with no lugs on the bolt, this new one has the lugs, and I guess the
barrel(s) could be swapped but you would have to headspace the new barrel.
Lugs or no lugs on the bolt isn't an issue because the breech plug takes the brunt of the pressure in a muzzleloading application.
As with the orignial 700ml, Remington isn't advising the use of smokeless powders for the new version.
With a barrel designed to handle 200 gr of powder, it sure would be capable of handling the stresses of smokeless power... however I can see where they don't want to say it will...if someone were to confuse 200 gr. of H4198 with 200 gr. of 777 powder it would be catastrophic. A Savage found out...North American's are sure a litigious bunch :)Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeeter
Remington cannot be responsable for stupid, it's easier to have the disclaimer.
You are correct 200 grs of H4198 would be awful. I have gone as high as 73 grs of H4198 powder and a 300 gr.bullet but that's in custom remington with a .458 krieger barrel which is designed for smokeless powder
additional info:
here is the weight/volume difference for BH 209
I see that Randy has produced an interesting ballistics graph for the Parker Match Hunter 300 gr. bullet. Even with a muzzle speed of 2125 using 136 grs (volume) of BH209 he found a 50" drop at 400 yds....that means your aiming over 4' above your target :)Quote:
Note: 100 grains by volume of Blackhorn 209 is 70 grains by actual weight, 120 grains by volume is 84 grains by weight, 150 grains volume = 105 grains by weight.
http://www.randywakeman.com/Remingto...ate9292014.htm