S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,924
Posts550,752
Members14,459
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228 |
Not mistaken as taken from >>Modern Breechloaders<< 1872 chapter & verse, but maybe a couple years early?
Serbus,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228 |
You may be referring to 0.500 whilst I am pulling data for >>39<< bore.
Serbus,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462 |
I'm not familiar with that book but I have a rifle in .500bpe and several books, both reloading manuals and reference books that confirm my historical loads. The .500 bpe never was loaded with that heavy of a bullet or that powder charge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462 |
39 bore is just that, the diameter of the lands in the barrel. You cannot get the powder charge or bullet weight from the bore markings on a vintage British rifle, that is not how those proof marks were designed.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228 |
You can pull it from the tables from >>Modern Breechloaders<< plus 1st & 2nd proof data. So you know for sure it is 0.500?
Serbus,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228 |
Maybe you should check that reference before you call my hand? Not sure where it applies but the data is contained therein.
Serbus,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462 |
100% sure that guns is a .500 yes, the only question is case length. You can see from the pictures it is a straight walled case so that takes any of the 577/500 variants out of the equation. So now we need to figure case length, the best way being a chamber cast on a gun from this vintage but I am betting on 3" as it was by far the most common, though it was made from a 1&1/2" case all the way up to a 3&1/4" case. On page 220 of the 3rd edition of Graeme Wright's book "Shooting the British Double Rifle" you will see his regulation load for the .500 3" of 136 grains of bp and a 340 grain bullet, this is a standard load. These same loads are confirmed in " British Sporting cartidges A summary of case types, headstamps, bullets and charge variations" by Bill Flemming.
I am 100% comfortable saying that you will not find a vintage British black powder double in .500" any length cartridge that was regulated for a 715grain bullet with 68grs of powder. I'm not a gambler, but on this I would bet the farm. Steve
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,119 Likes: 228 |
So you are stating that in proof table that unequivocally a bullet weight of >>715<< grains for a >>39<< bore, and others, will NOT be found?
Serbus,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,083 Likes: 462 |
I'm not even sure what a proof table is or how one is relevant to getting a vintage British bp rifle up and shooting. I'm saying that gun was built for a variant of a British .500" cartridge, almost certainly the .500 3" and that you will never find a vintage British .500" BP rifle regulated for the load you quoted. These are known loads which can be seen in several loading and cartridge reference books. A 715 gr bullet is far heavier than British bp .500s were loaded. To get that gun to shoot, slug the bores and cast the chambers then work up a bp load that will regulate. I would start with a bullet of about 340 grains myself.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,564 Likes: 233
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,564 Likes: 233 |
I don't have a dog in this fight, but proof tables were published because they were regulatory( actually statutory) for proofing the barrels, and show loads greatly in excess of any duty load. It is the same with the projectile weight for proofing. The "duty" or "regulation" load was entirely different and would have been determined by the cartridge's designer, not the government . This load would have been half or less than the proof load. Likewise bullet diameter and weight would vary, according to design. Two rifles of the same nominal caliber might use differing diameter bullets, depending on whether a "paper case" or "brass case" was intended to be used. Black Powder Express cartridges generally used lighter than normal bullets to achieve higher velocities. It was Nitro Express cartridges that achieved higher velocities with heavier bullets by generating higher pressures with cordite and similar propellants. Mike
|
|
|
|
|